Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

So Al, You Gonna Run?

By , AlterNet. Posted January 30, 2006.


We don't need a Democan or Republicrat. We need a person of clear conviction -- and with his recent speech, Al Gore may have established himself as that man.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Al Gore gave a great speech. It was the speech of his life. He made the case against the administration and for America. He spoke simply and boldly. He took positions that were clear and without equivocation.

It was a speech that everyone should have heard but few did. It was a speech that should have been widely covered, well reported and repeated via the media everywhere it could go. It was not widely broadcast, it was not well covered, it was not widely reported.

What now? Does Al enjoy his applause, take a bow and walk off stage?

That's up to Al. Artistically, his speech was a roaring success. But if he wants to make a difference, if he wants the things he said in his speech to matter, his speech failed.

Gore's speech failed -- in the sense that it did not bring about change -- for two reasons. The Bush administration has proven that the way things work is that you have to take a simple idea, or a set of simple ideas, and repeat them over and over again.

Sorry, but one speech doesn't matter. If he wants what he says to matter, he has to make a speech every time Bush does. And he has to continue to be as clear and bold and forthright and righteous as he was in this speech. Over and over again.

But how does he get the media to pay attention to such speeches?

In that narrow context, the quality of the speech doesn't matter. The quality of the reasoning, the insights, the clarity, the fervor in the speaker's voice, the vividness of the images and metaphors, the truths or falsehoods contained therein -- none of that matters much at all.

What matters is the standing of the person making the speech. "Standing," for these purposes, means one thing: the ability to act upon what you have to say. Thus, almost anybody in the administration -- not just the president, the vice-president, secretary of state, speaker of the house, majority leader of the senate -- has more standing than Al Gore does. If they say something, it means that there will be at least an attempt to carry it out, or that it is an elucidation of what is already being carried out, and it is therefore newsworthy.

How do does Gore achieve standing? The answer is obvious. He must start running for president.

A person credibly and seriously running for president is someone who will, if he wins, get to implement the things he has spoken of. Therefore, he is someone who needs to be listened to, whose words need to be reported.

Al Gore may not want to run for president. He is among the few people on earth who knows how hard it is and how heartbreaking it is to lose -- and worse -- to win and have it stolen from him.

The last time he ran, there was no apparent reason to do so, except that he had ambition, and it was something he was more or less born to do, like a Kennedy, a Roosevelt and a Bush. Now there is a reason to run. Because he has enunciated a set of principles and ideas to run on. Because America needs to hear what he has to say. Because no one else of standing and stature has come forward to say it.

If he doesn't have the stomach for it, well then, it was a nice speech, glad he made it, but he doesn't really care enough to make a difference. But frankly, I hope he does care enough. We don't need fence straddlers, we don't need a Democan or Republicrat, we don't need a more sensible Bush and a Cheney with compassion. Which is to say, we don't need Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. We need a person of clear conviction. Who has reasons to run, besides, "I wanna be president." Al Gore has just established himself as that man.

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I sure hope not.
Posted by: gdennis on Jan 30, 2006 12:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big supporter of corporate trade agreements and pro-death penalty, Al Gore is not the progressive choice we need. I congratulate him for his bold opposition to this administration's war on Iraq and war on civil liberties, but his economic agenda is -- last I heard -- Republican-lite all the way. A strong populist economic agenda is what the Dems need to win the swing states in the midwest, and Gore just doesn't have that. Remember, this is the man that chose our favorite Connecticut Republican, Joe Lieberman, as a running mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I sure hope not. Posted by: Shakti
» RE: I sure hope not. Posted by: gdennis
I sure hope so
Posted by: drew on Jan 30, 2006 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would certainly support, and work for, gore should he choose to run. His environmental record, populist orientation and evident principles places him well above any other that might be considered viable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody likes him
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 30, 2006 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody likes Gore except for those who care about the facts. Didn't we have a nice discussion last week about progressives' reluctance (or perhaps inability) to drag emotional arguments into reframing? Wooden Al, no matter how much conviction he has, will lose again should he run again. We'll never learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nobody likes him Posted by: precisioncontrol
» Get over it, dude. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Get over it, dude. Posted by: ericn613
» RE: Get over it, dude. Posted by: cottontail
» RE: Get over it, dude. Posted by: bettsoff
» sickofsleazeRE: Nobody likes him Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» LOL Posted by: bettsoff
Dead Men Do Wear Plaid
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Jan 30, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter how much neoliberals like Al swath themselves in blue-collar plaid, they're still empty corporate suits. As long as Al's got his patrician beltway friends to tell him what to do, we'll all still be subject to his pretty, empty speeches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like him - sometimes.
Posted by: sbartram on Jan 30, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for Nader in the Gore/Bush 2000 election and I voted for Nader because at the start of that campaign, Gore started pandering to the Cuban community in Florida. Hopefully he has learned his lesson. (Hilary might do well to learn it as well - anti-Castro Cubans and the Christian right WILL NEVER VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS) Figure that out and stand for something. Gore began at the end of the 2000 campaign to speak for the poor and sound progressive. I don't have time to hang on every work from the mouth of Al Gore, but, since screwing up in Florida, he seems consistently progressive and certainly better than we have now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: Llama11
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: taylor4004
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: ericn613
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: taylor4004
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: goldennugget
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: I like him - sometimes. Posted by: YogiBear
Are you kidding?
Posted by: mfogler on Jan 30, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore always SOUNDS good in his words either in a speech or in print. But what he DOES never seems to back up what he SAYS. If you read his environmental book and then check out what his actions have been throughout his career, it doesn't match whatsoever. In short, he's a hypocrite. No true progressive will ever come out of the Democratic Party. The two mainstream parties just simply are too mired in corruption and lack of integrity. To get a progressive agenda going, we're going to HAVE to bust out of the two party duopoly. It simply isn't working and anyone who harbors hope for it I think is simply fooling him or herself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» he is powerless Posted by: Iconoclast421
Al is not running. There are no more elections.
Posted by: h00man on Jan 30, 2006 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore knows there are no more elections. So does John Kerry. So do we, but we don't want to face it.

By 'elections', I mean the variety we recall as fair, one-person-one-vote kind, with multiple observers at polling stations and ballot box openings and counts, open voting to everyone, free comments from the press.

The leftovers of the broken system - the difficult registration, disappearing registrations, moving voting stations, threats to voters, disappearing votes, 'broken' electronic voting machines, corrupt campaigning - have brought American 'democratic' voting to the same status of a broken country.

There is still some sort of large media staged event, which one may participate in order to lose. But it's not an election.

It will change after after it becomes obvious to all, after people accept the truth and say it.

Everything is all broken, and not fixable. The banks and gas stations continue to work, but they will stop, too.

There is nothing left. No belief, no future, no vision, no aspiration. No left, right, wrong, moral or immoral, religion or sin.

State, corporation, church or institution, everything is built upon these, and they are gone.

They are hulking, pompous empty shells, seeking a purpose, like the Soviet Union was under Gorbachev.

Communism managed a soft landing, though. Capitalism clearly won't let go without a lot of violence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get out the defribillator, AL Gore might run...again.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 30, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the stumbling corps from a horror movie Al is careening through the dark woods towards an unsuspecting town. If the Demo's hit him with the defribillator he may run for office, again.

AAAAAHHHHH, it is alive. Run for your lives.

Aren't people tired of the Demo's and Repub's yet. We need new parties in control. You know, parties with ideas and energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For all talk and no action, forget it.
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 30, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the fucking point of Gore talking bravely but never running. And as an earlier poster pointed out, his book on the environment rarely matched his career. Compared to bullies like Dick Cheney, with Gore you'd never even know that there was a vice-president. Besides, if he hadn't run a mealy mouthed campaign in 2000 and hadn't written off large portions of the country, he wouldn't have been in the pitiful tied state. In addition, neither he nor the Democrats had any unity and it still is the case. How many more elections must this party be forced to lose until they can stop acting like a "battered spouse" party ?!?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nine Mile - Public Lands Access
Posted by: Wildlander on Jan 30, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore was directly involved in the corporatism and privitization of public lands. In Montana in the 1990's Al Gore brought together private interests to replace public ownership of our national forests, BLM, National Parks and other federal lands. The gathering of private interests under Al Gore was given the name Nine Mile.

Prior to the 1990's (with the exception of the National Park System that provided extra services) our "public lands" were free for all to enjoy. They were managed by funds we pay each year by our federal taxes. If thirty percent of our wages , let me repeat that, THIRTY percent of our wages are not sufficient to continue paying for our public lands, what then do we get for that 30 percent of taxes we hand over each year? The truth is, Al Gore wanted to tax us for our pleasure - just as we were taxed for our pleasure during the years of the Boston Tea Party. He understood the anatogy but he went forward on behalf of private insterests anyway.

I appreciated what he said, but I certainly cannot believe that he will hold to his words. He clearly gives precedence to private interests over freedom.

He sinlge handedly destroyed the true spirit of the old west. Its foundation was that the physical expression of freedom was not our right to exercise our vocal chords but found in our rights to unfettered access to OUR "public lands. Note that in the interim 15 years, the term "public lands" has been replaced by "federal lands" in US Forest Service, BLM and onther federal land management agceny pamphlets. This change in use of terminology is an effort to distance the people and to break the recognition and connection and ownership of the land - so that the next generation would never realize that these lands were in fact yours but are now being annexed by corporate interests.

And Gore cannot see his involvement in that, if he cannot see his fault in destroying that greater sense of freedom in this coutnry, then I certainly do not want him running this country. He may put up a good show but in the dark behind those curtains, he supports corporatism no less than Bush does. In old cowboy talk, he is a two faced bastard and a son of a bitch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nine Mile - Public Lands Access Posted by: bigtreesfall
» RE: Nine Mile - Public Lands Access Posted by: Iconoclast421
Gore is Worth Considering
Posted by: StuartH on Jan 30, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore seems to have grown through the grief and pain
of watching what has happened to America under the
neocons. One might hope that he has had plenty of
time to read all the comments on the mistakes of 2000,
which center on letting the DLC and its handlers take
over his mind.

His speeches, particularly the last one focusing on the
Constitutional crisis portended by domestic spying and
the other claimed powers of the Bush presidency, have
shown a greater freedom to play a classic role as an
eminent statesman.

I hope he decides to jump in and see what happens. At
this point, the alternative is Hillary Clinton, who seems
to have become a captive of the DLC and its concept
that Democrats can not win unless they capture enough
of the right. If Feingold or Gore cannot get primary
victories and Hillary does, then it will prove the DLC right.
I'm with Molly Ivins. I doubt Hillary will get very far.

In 2004, it was the average Democratic caucus goers,
seemingly hypnotized, who kept repeating "electability"
as they voted for Kerry, frightened into submission by
the way the media treated Dean.

A third party is not the answer. If progressives lack the
discipline necessary to deal with local caucus turnout,
it doesn't make sense that taking on all the formative
issues in all the states necessary to starting up a new
party is thinkable by 2008. However, it is not out of the
realm of possibility if the Democrats fail in 2008. But, it
will take risking several election cycles and giving the
White House to the Republicans until it becomes strong enough to win.

I would take Gore's flaws and the possibility that he may
grow, over Republican control over the White House for that long.

Maybe as the 2008 election comes more into view, a
better picture will emerge. Probably not, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which speech???
Posted by: nergohs on Jan 30, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What speech is this article referring to? The only one I can find was the one he gave for Move-On.org back in August 2003. Here is a link to that speech.

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which speech??? Posted by: nergohs
» RE: Which speech??? Posted by: JoshuaHolland
» RE: Which speech??? Posted by: The Old Hippie
Karl Rove Knows How to Win!
Posted by: Spyder on Jan 30, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore is the most likely candidate who can win against the right-wing crazies now in control. It's time for us to quit bickering among ourselves and get behind the candidate that can kick those buttheads out of the White House. They may be evil and dangerous, but they know how to unify and win the support of the voters above all else. We are a long way from any third party victory. If you think we can elect another Abe Lincoln from his little log cabin, you have access to better drugs than I do. Our modern corporate money obsession has totally obliterated that line of bull from our electoral process. You have to be a millionaire to run, much less to win. You think we can suddenly elect the first woman to the presidency? Your drug supply is hot stuff, too! Wake up and unify. Put a tall, white, happily married male on the Democratic ballot and let's show those crazies the exit door!

http://www.e-tabitha.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Karl Rove Knows How to Win! Posted by: drricklippin
Fool me once...
Posted by: chrisv on Jan 30, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and when Gore gets in the hands of the handlers again, which Al Gore will they craft? A progressive, populist who wants to abolish the internal combustion motor? Or the centrist garbage who couldn't even carry his home state?

I mean don't you folks understand YET? A Democrat who runs as a "kinder, gentler" Republican will NEVER, EVER win. And the neo-cons have been so successful at redefining the boundaries of political discussion that a "centrist" is far to the _right_ of what even a conservative used to be. The _only_ way to offer a difference to Americans is to run truthfully and fully as a progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get Better Handlers! Posted by: betrgovtnow
Gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jan 30, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore has changed. So have many who formerly were in the pockets of the corporations. The reason is that they recognize as we should that we are facing what Dimitroff called, "The open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary and chauvinidtic sections of finance capital. "--fascism

His speach was that of the rabble rouser supreme. It left the audience standing in ovation. Certainly Nader has a record as an honest man, but we need a leader with the kind of charisma that Gore demonstrated. He is an anti-fascist and that can be built on.

As one who has seen fascism in its days of seemingly unbeatable power and the great war that it took to destroy it I know what the proper course is for us today. It is "the united front". It united as allies the ultra conservative Winston Churchill, The Roosevelt administration, and even Joe Stalin to stamp out this monstrous beast. I remember when the American Communists were fighting Roosevelt's preparations for the coming conflict. We should not make this mistake today.

I don't know whether or not Gore will take on the job, but I sure as hell hope that he does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Education of Al Gore
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 30, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In some way that will only make complete sense with the passage of time, the 2000 election mess was the best thing that could have ever happened to Al Gore if he chooses to run for President again. I know that's hard to swallow, but step back, check your anger and look at the cards.

Whoever runs in 2008 from the G.O.P. is going to have to defend, in part or whole, the record GWB and the Congressional Republicans have made over 8 years. Even though GWB will not be running, whoever runs will be in the position of being defined by that record. They can defend it or run from it, but it will be a huge issue in the campaign.

No candidate running on either side will be able to say 'I told you so' without saying it except for Al Gore. No other candidate will come to the race with his record of experience (VP/Senator/Representative), name recognition or public vetting. After a lifetime of public service, 8 years as Vice-President and a Democratic General Election Campaign, any skeletons that were in his closet came out a long time ago and will not sidetrack his campaign.

8 years is a long time and Al Gore now knows why he wants to be President and exactly what he wants to do. He has seen the Bush II era with knowledge and experience we can only guess at (from the outside of a very select club) and has seen the price to the people, the country, and the issues that he cares about.

In 2000 he looked like someone running for the President because that was what he was supposed to do. In 2008 he will know exactly WHY he wants to be President and so will the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Gore for President...No way!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Alyx on Jan 30, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets all look back to 1987, and the Senate Hearings with good ol'boy Ollie North.
A senator was questioning North on why he felt it was necesary to spend 60,000 bucks on a security system for his family, he told this Senator because he was afraid for the lives of his family and himself, from a terrorist, named, Osama bin Laden.

The Senator could not even pronounce bin Laden's name, and asked North why he thought this man was a threat, North replied that bin Laden was the most evil man he knew of, and that if the US was smart they would put together a team to hunt him down and assasinate him.

The good Senator thought that was a very bad idea.

Oh by the way, the good Senator, Al Gore

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I spent my last 10 dollars on this talking Al Gore doll"
Posted by: picaresque on Jan 30, 2006 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that, of the short list of known, available Democratic choices for president, Al Gore comes out on top.

That makes me want to cry.

Yes, Al won in 2000 (at least in terms of numbers), but he shot himself in the foot any number of times and any number of ways by being unable to portray himself with any strength of character. It's all very well and good to stand on principles when it's not a presidential campaign, but Gore's campaign (as well as his fight for Florida after his campaign) was a good example of poor judgements, prevarications, mixed messages, and most importantly, a candidate who was largely seen (even by his supporters) as a stuffed shirt. Like it or not, image & personality play a huge part in presidential politics, as Bush is well aware. Gore can't win that contest unless he's changed a lot in the last 5 years, and I don't see that yet, good speeches or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical Democratic Canibalism
Posted by: edmenken on Jan 30, 2006 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw Gore's entire speech on C-SPAN, and saved the transcript as it appeared on the net. In reading the various commentaries here, I'm amazed but not surprised at the disconnect displayed by so many "progressives"...and the apparent canibalism once again demonstrated by our "learned" bretheren.

To "bettsoff", who inexplicably believes that Gore "lost" the 2000 election, let me remind you that he actually won the popular vote, and won Florida as well, as we've since learned...despite Bush's appointment by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court. He would have done even better -- and likely would have won Florida by a decisive margin -- had he not had to carry the Clinton scandal baggage at the time.

It isn't just Gore's most recent speech, but his several outstanding speeches during the past few years (sponsored by MoveOn.org) that clearly show that (1) He no longer has the Clinton baggage as a problem; (2) He is more forceful and couageous than any other prominent Democrat on today's political landscape; (3) Neither Hillary, nor Biden, nor Edwards, nor Kerry, nor any other major Democrat can win against the distractions, distortions, and deceit of the Republican party. But Al Gore has figured out that in order to win, the candidtate is going to have to demonstrate the skills of a "street-fighter"...and he now knows how to do it. He's also smart enough to dump the DLC, and not let any of those "Republican-lite", so-called Democrats anywhere near his 2008 campaign....should he run.

After what will undoubtedly be seen as a disasterous 8 years of lies, death, destruction, and corruption, and the fact that Gore should have won last time, the American people will vote for him in much larger numbers than in 2000. All we'd need to worry about is the voting machines in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few other states. And that is no small matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen! Posted by: djtyg
joytex
Posted by: joytex on Jan 30, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We SURE hope so. He'll get our votes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Gore You are a dynamic man! Please RUN again for 2008!
Posted by: fritzers on Jan 30, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1/30/2006
Dear Al Gore:

You have changed a lot. I loved your recent speech about GW breaking the law. You are now a dynamic, energetic, very street smart and you are very electable.

Al, we know how much you suffered after that 2000 stolen election, but you have learned your lessons that you need to stick to your words, and be very positive, very assertive, a lot more aggressive and not take anything for granted!

You previous mistakes were:

1- You made a catastrophic mistake by refusing help from President Clinton. That mistake made you lose the phenomenal support of the enormously loved President! That was a terrible miscalculation on your part.

2- Joe Lieberman actually was a horrible choice!

3-You took it for granted that you will win and you did not give it everything you had. You held back and did not attack GW and DC as hard as you should have.

But now you are the best possible candidate for 2008 and you will win if you do the SMART THING and do run again. I hated Nixon, but remember how he lost first but he kept trying again and again until he one!

You have what it takes to lead this country, and by extension, help lead the world!

We all urge you to make the very most important and the boldest decision of you life and start RUNNING for the 2008 Elections. Back up your fantastic recent speech with a decision RUN for 2008!

Even if you lose again, history will say that you gave it all and you did not run away when the country was in grave danger of becoming a Dictatorship.

You are an authentic patriot, please SAVE us from the impending Dictatorship disaster.

Best wishes and good luck to you.

Thanks.

Somebody please make sure Al Gore reads this post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Jan 30, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm still P O'd about some of the sins of the Clinton-Gore administration. But we've got to get united behind SOMEBODY and a third party winnner is unrealistic. There is no Mr. (or Mrs.) Perfect on the horizon. Gore has the moxie, intellect, and the experience to take on the next GOP corporate backed war-monger. But if you love war, and it seems most Americans do, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whom you vote for, or if you vote at all. We'll keep killing real and imagined enemies and ruin the future of our kids and grandkids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jan 30, 2006 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you see Tim Russert take Frist over the coals. Lets face it. It is getting so all you have to be is a normal human being with brains to get sick in the stomach listening to the excuses of the neocons. They are like the Melendez brothers who killed their mother and father with shotguns and begged the court on the ground they were orphans.

Liberal or conservative mean nothing when faced by sociopaths. I like Nader, Cindy Sheehan, and a lot of people, but Gore the rabble rouser is a phenomenon that can win big for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should Gore run?
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 30, 2006 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course Gore should run. No one else in the Democratic Party is standing up to Bush's Newspeak (fiction disguised as fact). Would Gore win? That would be sorted out in the primaries. If he gets through them, he's got a shot. Who are the Republicans going to offer? John McCain? Give me a break. McCain couldn't even defend his exemplary military record and character against Bush's smears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Should Gore run? Posted by: YogiBear
Gore's platform
Posted by: politico_ken@yahoo.com on Jan 30, 2006 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now, we need Gore more than we need anyone. We need to make the black hole at the ballot box a national issue, and Gore is the best candidate to do so. Hillary is the front-runner, and Bill can’t run. The only other potential candidates that could run a campaign that would be national from the beginning are Gore and Kerry, and Kerry has other obligations. So let’s draft Gore, and let’s draft the foundation of his platform for him: Democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NEO-GORE IS GOOD TO RUN
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 30, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEO-GORE IS THE BEST DEM OPPORTUNITY. His MLK birthday speech was a blockbuster. Howard Dean is VP of choice. Both of these guys are very smart and bold. Gore's green platform was premature in 2000. Very ripe now! We not only have global warming. We also have a compelling need to wean off of mideast oil tit. Gore can be appealing to working class and growing poor. He can fashion a good Health Care policy see http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com HE WILL STOP THIS INSANE WAR! and corporate and political corruption. He will push on election and campaign finance reform Run -Al- RUN-Your country needs you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone can deliver a speech
Posted by: veive on Jan 30, 2006 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even George W. Bush comes up with some good speeches, assuming you ignore his ignoramous delivery style. What matters is being able to deliver what those good speeches promise. That's where these politicians flop big time. They figure that telling us what we want to hear will be enough to get 'em elected. Once in office, hell, that next election is a long way off. Plenty of time to come up with that next good speech.

I'd like to see Bob Kerrey's name tossed around some. I think he's got the right stuff to take on the crooked political infrastructure and he delivers less bullsh!t per syllable than anyone in recent memory. Barack Obama is another possibility but he'll have to earn a few battle scars first. No, Kerrey's the best the Dems have at present. Let Gore rest in peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anyone can deliver a speech Posted by: HeidiLockwood
mauzey
Posted by: mauzey on Jan 30, 2006 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding Mr. Gore's most recent speech, let us see what happens. Mr. Beinhart suggests it is up to Mr. Gore now; will he run for the presidency? Who knows? Does he have the stomach for it? Who knows? I suggest we adopt a cautious wait and see attitude.

We might reflect a moment or two and ask who, over the past few years. has made the most consistent attacks on this President and his war policies? Which Democrat has consistently shown an anti-war stance? Which Democrat has criticized the torture, civil liberties violations and mendacity of this administration most often and most consistently? The answer is Al Gore.

We need to recognize that the most serious problem facing us is this administration's war policy. A president who lies, repeatedly, to get us into an unjust war does great harm to us all. We need to focus on getting an anti-war Congressional majority in order to change the disastrous policy we have been following. This must be our number one goal.

If Mr. Gore can aid in this effort, all the better. If he chooses to run in 2008 based upon what he does and says over the next few months, then we would be better able to judge the seriousness of his candidacy. Should he keep on the tac he is presently following, I, for one, would be happy to support him.

We should all recall the presidencies of Grover Cleveland. A person can change and become an more attractive candidate depending on many factors. To date Al Gore has made some very significant and exceptional remarks that we should all note regardless of the media. Let us encourage him and others like him, for his courage is and should be an inspiration to all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mauzey Posted by: drricklippin
Too all stupid americans
Posted by: tclaverdure on Jan 30, 2006 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too all the stupid americans who continue again and again to be suckers for the right wing spin machine.

Al Gore is the best and the only man to lead the democratic party to victory. Look at the polls. He beat Dumbya, he will beat ANY repuglican. The only way they can win is too steal and stir fear, think long and hard on that.

The evil republican party is the only enemy, focus on that, not on slurping up their talking points. Call their lies and kick their asses.

A progressive Canadian who cares. Al Gore in 2008. Or do you want the queen of postures, Hillary.

By the way PM Harper is a christofascist wack job and we in canada will quickly wake up to this fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too all stupid americans Posted by: drricklippin
Zachary
Posted by: zalamarz on Feb 1, 2006 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, Al Gore is basically a good guy, but too weak, and acquired a label as a Clinton lackey. If he had resigned as VP from the corrupt Bill-Hillary Clinton cabal, then ran against George W Bush, he would have won. Well, he stayed on, lost, then threw post-election tanrums at Billary-Clinton. He should have done the honorable thing and resigned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

timeless
Posted by: timeless on Feb 1, 2006 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is this the presence of heaven on earth as the supposed lords prayer states?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Feb 1, 2006 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have nine months until the midterm elections and it is vitally important that we take over Congress. I suggest that we take over the Democratic Party by adopting the same technique that won the Congress for the Republicans after the Congress had been dominated by the Democrats for forty years.

Newt Gingrich did it by taking over GOPAC and writing a Contract for America. Here are a couple of gems I found on the net.
Taking the helm of GOPAC, Gingrich emphasized spreading ideas and inspiring conservative reform minded citizens. Through countless campaigns, seminars, workbooks, audiotapes and years of grassroots organizing, GOPAC became the Republican Party's preeminent education and training center. The famous GOPAC tapes, in particular, galvanized Republican candidates and activists.

Many political observer credited GOPAC with being a key catylist of the Republican Revolution that stormed the nation in 1994, sweeping in the first GOP Congress in four decades and leaving a record number of governorships and statehouses in Republican hands.

Newt Gingrich - 1978 speech.
"This party does not need another generation of cautious, pundits, careful, bland, irrelevant, quasi-leaders who are willing as people to drift into positions because nobody else is available. What we really need are people who are hard-working, energetic, willing to take risks, willing to stand up in a ug, ug, slugfest and match it out with their opponent, and people who take themselvesw and saving the country so seriously that when they have to choose between a week on the lake, and a week saving the country they never worry about which choice they make, because they know that next spring when there are no campaigns, they can go to the lake. But the only time you have to save the country is between June and November of every other year. It does take time, it takes a lot of hard work.
--------------

We should write a Contract for America with the two issues that seperate Democrats from Progressives. Get out of Iraq now, and Impeach George Bush. This will be the touchstone. If a rotten Democrat or any Republican is running-go to the registrar of voters and run yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

timeless
Posted by: timeless on Feb 2, 2006 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what if right before our eyes there is another truth stranger than fiction about whos running what and how people are obsolete?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice piece on Gore...
Posted by: littlebozo on Feb 3, 2006 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well done article on a great speech. Al Gore and John Kerry are two candidates I'm proud to have supported. Kerry wasn't my initial choice in the primary but I got behind him.
Both showed a considerable amount of naivete' - they were not ready for the kind of campaign that was required. Al Gore was overly coached to where he had lost his "flava" (which I believe he's shown again as of late - the backbone has always been there.) Besides, Tommy Lee Jones digs Al. And Al Gore made the mistake of having faith in justice. And Kerry had Bob Shrum.....btw how does he always find work? Damn, I'm not hatin' the guy for tryin' to make a livin' or anything but man, was he ever friggin' clueless! The footprints of failure are all over him. And the stakes were/are WAY too high... Shrum's our version of a "heckuva job Brownie." Sorry about gettin' off topic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NAFTA was Al Gore's baby.
Posted by: HeidiLockwood on Feb 4, 2006 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People... It's not about Dems vs Repugs, or Anyone vs Bush. It's about the "Free" traders agains all the rest of us! ALL the other issues, while they may be important to us, to them are only cosmetic. Is there anyone reading this who still doesn't know this??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hello out there... Posted by: HeidiLockwood
No on Al Gore
Posted by: tsarbeck on Feb 5, 2006 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This longtime Florida resident, a 1974 candidate for election to the Arizona legislature and now a California activist worked many hours in Al Gore's 2000 campaign. In spite of Florida Sec'y of State K. Harris's machinations:
1. Why did Al make no attempt to steal some of Nader's issues and some of his votes?
2. Why did the Florida Demo Party not tell Al the election would be a close one?
For #1, I have no answer.
For #2, were I today to run for a partisan office, I would seek money from those who see campaign contributions as investments promising future returns. I wouldn't need the support of myriads of party workers.
Al is not a terribly bright guy, or his handlers screwed up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to both explanations.
Posted by: HeidiLockwood on Feb 5, 2006 11:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore is very bright, and the problem must go well beyond his "handlers"? I don't trust the Dem hierarchy because I don't think anyone who knows anything about the political scene could make such consistently and relentlessly stupid and counter-Dem choices as they have made over the last decade-plus. And I don't trust Al Gore for the same reason, based on his performance in public office, and because he threw his election, at the end if not before. As did the whore "we'll hunt them down and KILL them" (not "bring them to Justice") Kerry. F ____ "electability"! Give ALL the scumbags unrelenting heat and support those few with PROVEN integrity in e