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.

For Progressives, Gore's the One in 2008

By Tad Daley, AlterNet. Posted June 28, 2007.


The 44th American presidency is his for the taking. And it's time for the left to get busy asking.

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

Also in Top Stories

It Isn't Morning in America Anymore -- It's Dusk on Planet Earth
Bill McKibben, Tomdispatch.com

Nixon's Savage Attack on the Greatest Anti-War Movement in U.S. History
Rick Perlstein, AlterNet

Anti-Feminist Backlash Out in Full Force
Katha Pollitt, The Nation

The Healing Power of Pets
Rebecca Armstrong, The Independent UK

Hillary's Grotesque Insult to African-Americans
Bob Herbert, The New York Times

Sex Work vs. Trafficking: Understanding the Difference
Melissa Ditmore, RH Reality Check

The Human Rights Crime in Gaza
Jimmy Carter, The Guardian

More stories by Tad Daley

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In recent days, the word used more and more frequently to describe Hillary Clinton's march to the Democratic presidential nomination has been "inevitable." She consistently leads public opinion polls across the country by a good 10 points over her nearest rival. Hollywood, after a brief infatuation with Barack Obama, is now, according to the Los Angeles Times, consolidating its support behind the junior senator from New York. Rupert Murdoch employee Peter Chernin extracted a cool $850,000 from wealthy Angelenos for the former first lady at a recent event in his home. A few days later, she was endorsed by the King of Hollywood himself -- Steven Spielberg.

I wonder if Mr. Spielberg will change his mind when Al Gore declares his candidacy this fall.

I have never met Mr. Gore. I make no claim to any inside knowledge on this question. I have no idea whether he's gaining or losing weight.

But I think he's coming.

I think he's going to find it impossible to resist.

And I think progressives should get busy, right now, working to hasten the day.

Many Prefer Gore Over the Entire Democratic Field

I have been working on Democratic political campaigns, international policy analysis, and anti-nuclear advocacy for a couple of decades now -- usually finding myself on the left side of the room. So, although I was somehow left off the invitation list for the event at Mr. Chernin's, I have met a great many rank-and-file Democratic voters over the years. And -- like other political junkies -- I have been talking with them a lot recently about the 2008 presidential contest.

The majority of my Democratic friends have devoted most of their attentions to the three avowed front-runners -- Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards. Yet during the last six months or so, whenever I've asked them whom they would choose if they were choosing between four candidates -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Al Gore -- probably 90 percent have told me, in a heartbeat, that they'd go for Gore.

So I've been thinking a bit about why that might be the case.

Gore v. Obama

When Democrats compare Al Gore to Barack Obama, they see someone with the same compelling charisma (at least now, if not in 2000), the same grass roots attraction, the same heart-over-head allure. Yet, it is beyond obvious to point out that Gore has almost infinitely superior experience in the national and international arenas. Obama, despite his manifest intelligence and palpable political gifts, still today has served less than two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, with stints as a state senator and a law professor before that. Al Gore -- who is only 13 years older than Obama -- has under his belt eight years in the House, eight years in the Senate, and eight years as vice president. Not to mention six and a half years since then as an amazingly effective environmental activist, worldwide, during which time "the Goracle" has become a cultural icon larger than mere politics.

Plus, you want to know the first thought that will spring into the minds of 90 percent of Obama supporters, the instant that Gore announces?

"Gore/Obama 2008."

Gore v. Edwards

When Democrats compare Al Gore to John Edwards, they see two political leaders who insist on talking about Big Ideas. Edwards, displaying what all progressives should applaud as a profile in political courage, has centered his second presidential campaign on the injustice of intractable inequality -- not only around the block but also around the world. (In a little-noticed remark during the South Carolina debate in April, he called for "making primary school education available to 100 million children worldwide.") And he has crafted arguably the most important single campaign sentence at this critical juncture in our history, when he calls upon Americans "to be patriotic about something other than war."

Gore, of course, has one or two Big Ideas of his own up his sleeve. He has spent the last quarter-century sounding the alarm on global climate change and environmental sustainability -- and has almost single-handedly willed it into mainstream public consciousness. And now, with his new book, The Assault on Reason, already number one on the New York Times best-seller list, he takes on the sustainability of our American democracy itself.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: edwards, obama, hillary clinton, election 2008, al gore

Tad Daley is a veteran political advisor and nuclear policy analyst. He has served as a policy aide to the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston, as National Issues Director for the 2004 presidential campaign of Congressman Dennis Kucinich, as a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America (pdamerica.org) and as a member of the international policy department at the RAND Corporation think tank before all that. He writes frequently for commondreams.org, truthdig.com, huffingtonpost.com, and our own alternet.org. He lives in Los Angeles.

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:
Al Gore for . . . Al Gore, as it turns out
Posted by: Rune on Jun 28, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore is a lot smarter than the current president and I am more comfortable with the bulk of his uncomfortable political truths than those (that we are able to learn about) of Bush and Cheney. However, I cannot help but notice some disturbing similarities between Dubya and Al Gore. For one thing, they come from rich and powerful political dynasties. I think we would do well to end that trend.

For another, neither man is very impressive when it comes to fighting an honest and determined fight to protect the Constitution and the greater good of the common people. Books have been written about Bush's failures in this this area, but let's not forget that Gore has a history of cutting deals with the very interests he claims to be opposed to on moral grounds. And then, there was that little battle in Florida in which an election was rigged and, rather than say so, he chose to go quietly and leave us with the consequences while he took some time off to find a way to capitalize on the corrupt political connections he had preserved by so doing. And, now, he is back, ready to cut himself in, again.

No, I am not talking about his movie, his speaking tour, or even his emerging run for another shot at the White House. Those are just tactics that could lead to some icing on the cake. But the cake itself is about gaining more and longer lasting power and wealth for himself than he ever could in a government position, even president, so he has set his sights on being at the center of an energy policy that has more to do with making rich people richer than making the world safer or healthier--just like the current occupant of the White House.

Oh, sure, Al Gore cares about global warming for the right reasons. But he also cares about it for personal gain, yet he is never honest and up front about that.

Gore is founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, LLP, one of the early leaders in creating markets for carbon offset trading. He hopes to become a carbon offset tycoon, and he can only do that if he can get the world to buy into buying and selling carbon offset credits. That is why he spent so much time on that particular subject when he was back on Capitol Hill this year.

Carbon offset credits are ripe for abuse. The standards are minimal and likely to get watered down by big, polluting industries, much as standards for "organic" food have been gutted, as time goes on. There is no proof that they work even under the best of circumstances, especially to the extent that many of the credits amount to planting trees and such, which will take decades to offset carbon emissions that are adding to a crisis today. And carbon offset credits are likely to create opportunities for gaming the system as shady accounting practices and greed lead to false claims of emissions reductions, much as Enron was able to falsify energy trades for years before the billions of dollars of fraud was exposed to the detriment of tens of thousands of victims.

If we want to really make big changes on global warming, we will need to make some tough policies and fully fund and support their enforcement. And if we want to turn the country around in many other areas, we will need someone who can take the heat, set aside their greed and self interests, and show some skill and backbone. In short, we need someone other than Gore or the other game players who are making headlines so far.

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

» RE: NADER/GORE '08 Posted by: kbest
» RE: Al Gore/Barak Obama 2008 Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Hydrogen Fusion, Yes... CSA's... Posted by: edgar_michel
» A Clever Rock Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: A Clever Rock Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: A Clever Rock Posted by: edgar_michel
» boy, are you misinformed! Posted by: Shakti
» Troll heaven Posted by: BKLN
» RE: Troll heaven Posted by: bex
» What a bunch of hot air! Posted by: Rune
» RE: About Gore -- Right on Posted by: mom'z the word
mr. john polifronio
Posted by: johnp on Jun 28, 2007 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm told that Gore is "the one," the Left wants for president. But why? Gore is as much a candidate in the pocket of "big money" as are the other demo candidates. And it's a fact that Gore chose none other than Joe Lieberman to be his running mate when he opposed Bush in 2000. Lieberman could not possibly be hated more than he is, by the left. How would this indicate that Gore's is able to please the left, as a presidential candidate?


Hillary is, far and away, the preferred candidate in the race for the presidency. Whether she'll win the highest office in the land, or deserves it, remains to be seen. But I doubt that Gore will intrude on this process; though, if he did, I'd gladly throw my support behind him. But not because I'm a Leftie, but because I forgive him for his mistakes, including that he allowed Lieberman to be his VP choice in 2000, and that he is supported by corporate largesse. Faults which, up till now, the left has been unwilling, or pretended to be unwilling, to refuse to forgive, in any other dem candidate.

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

WHY THE NATION NEEDS GORE
Posted by: drricklippin on Jun 28, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition to the cogent analysis by Tad Daley in this piece I believe perhaps the most important reason NEO-GORE (YES-HE HAS FOUND HIS OWN VOICE) needs to run and be elected presisent is the following.

The nation needs desperately to expunge itself of its collective guilt for stealing the election from Mr. Gore in 2000 and handing the presidency over to an individual who almost destroyed our once great nation and ruined our reputation in the global community

Gore can restore us to greatness.

I see Gore/Obama ticket in 08- Can't possibly lose!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» RE: WHY THE NATION NEEDS GORE Posted by: drricklippin
Tefech
Posted by: Tefech on Jun 28, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore was elected twice to the Presidency. Can he run again?
If so, Re-Elect Gore in 2008!

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

» RE: Tefech Posted by: Dale Dressler
Smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jun 28, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as our present system of financing campaigns persists any candidate put up by either party has to be approved by the corporate establishment.

Real campaign finance reform, 100% public funding, will not be on the platform of either party's candidate, simply because this corruption keeps the corporatocracy in power.

I believe that the way for the people to gain control of our government is to act before the election to force both parties to have our issues on their platforms. The platforms are more important than the candidates.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

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

» RE: Smoke and mirrors. Posted by: IntnsRed
» RE: Smoke and mirrors. Posted by: Lincoln fan
We Coulda Had A Tax
Posted by: edith on Jun 28, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Is there any political figure in America today who can better restore our faith in the light than Al Gore?"

What a nostalgic article. We coulda had a saint for President. Boo Hoo.

And as for "who can better restore our faith in the light...?" than our own St Paul, Al Gore? Yeah, I've a candidate: a utility worker who decides to run for President.

But seriously, Al Gore is for a carbon tax, a regressive punitive measure that sucks billions of dollars from the take home pay of utility and other average workers. Gore would launch this crushing blow to the economy even before significant alternatives to coal and gasoline exist, so we'd all be forced to give up carbon and eventually choose alternatives, when they are available. But for how many years would we suffer before alternatives are available? Al doesn't say!

Gore also claims he'll offset that carbon sales/use tax with an abolition of payroll taxes. Right. Can any sane person who reads about politics deny that Democrats are focused on taxes as the primary way to finance Medicare and Social security needs of the future?

So we'll get a carbon tax and higher payroll taxes? So much for the "party of labor". Eroding paychecks shrunk even more by sharply higher payroll and carbon taxes! We are such sinners and Al righteously is going to inflict pain on us that we so richly deserve for buying those SUVs and renting those second homes over the summer. Shades of 17th century Salem!

PS. The author is so smitten by Gore that he makes Gore into some kind of antinuclear activist. As Senator from Oak Ridge, oops, I mean Tennessee, Al was Mr. Nukie himselfie.

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

» RE: We Coulda Had A Tax Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: We Coulda Had A Tax Posted by: edgar_michel
For progressives, Kucinich is the one for 08
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on Jun 28, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet is supposedly "progressive" but even here the REAL progressives aren't being high-lighted. The "Blue-Dog" dems aren't going to make the drastic changes that this country (and thereby the world) needs to survive past the 21st century. Anyone that thinks carbon offsets are a solution is dreaming that the current corporations and their current stocks can co-exist with a sustainable environmental policy.

What America has created is NOT sustainable. The path we are on will lead to environmental collapse. The solution is to quit burning fossil fuels. We have the technology to go green, but the trade off is that we develop a sustainable economy, which means that we aren't constantly pumping fuel money into corporate tanks.

The solution is to have pv solar on every roof feeding the grid along with phev cars. As long as anyone in gov't is supporting coal fired power plants or subsidizing oil we will remain on the wrong path.

Perhaps Larry Page, Dr. Eric Schmidt, Shona Brown or David C. Drummond need to be encouraged to run. These people are on to the answer: http://www.google.org/recharge/

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

» RE: Ron Paul is Libertarian Posted by: channing
Hmmm..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 28, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... an absolute insider who was meak and mild on every issue that would have actually cost him anything politically... until he wasn't running for any office ever again.

Give up on Al Gore already, folks. He was too much of a pansy then... he's too much of a pansy now.

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

» EXACTLY Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: Hmmm.. Posted by: peacefullaim
» Actually, idiot... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Mr.
Posted by: stephennnn on Jun 28, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really don't like to engage in the Messiah Complex that so many of my fellow Americans seem to rely on when making critical judgements. However, I did vote for Gore, and I would vote for him again..and indeed I hope that he decides to run. Just remember that any democratic candidate will have to face the slurs and arrows of the Republican machine..most notably gay marriage, abortion, troop support and flag waving over constitutional reading. Like it or not these issues will turn out the Republican fatithful as they have done before. Let the Republicans look for their Messiah, let's be practical.. First of all Al Gore must really want to run. He's no stranger to the political process, and he is still hurting from the press coverage he received during his last campaign. Things may be different, but I am one of those who believe that when push comes to shove the Bloggersphere just doesn't have the politcal muscle that TV, and talk radio have. Quite simply we're too damn intellectual and our explanations take more that a simple sound bite. John Kerry will attest to that conclusion. Blogging may be the pundit of the future, but it's not here yet.

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

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Old Me
He didn't fight!
Posted by: phindrup on Jun 28, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore said something to the effect of: ‘to fight for the presidency would destroy peoples faith in the system’.
This must be one of the greatest political misjudgements of all time. Why would you want him for president?
That said, Hilary Clinton is unlikely to do anything to move the US into a position from where it may be able to begin to repair its deserved reputation.
The US will take generations to build any sort of position of influence or credibility, unless we are overwhelmed by a climatic disaster, which renders nations irrelevant.

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

» Purchasing Options? Posted by: edith
» RE: Purchasing Options? Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: He didn't fight! Posted by: Dallas112263
Induced Bandwagon Effect
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 28, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wonder about those polls. I just saw a poll that says Obama and Hillary are almost neck and neck. A poll is only as good as the sample it is taken from. Perhaps some of these polls are skewed to create the bandwagon effect - the phenomena where people have a tendency to go with the winner. I have a great deal of respect for Gore. He could have been very bitter. Instead he chose service to humanity instead of brooding. Hillary won't be getting my vote under any circumstances.

"Weight obsession is a social disease. If we cared more about CO2 than BMI there MIGHT still be time."

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

» The Godfather of Green Posted by: edith
» RE: The Godfather of Green Posted by: edgar_michel
Sure, why the hell not?
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 28, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore is no better or worse than any of the current candidates in the democratic party. Kucinich is the only one that stands out and the magical and mystical little man from Ohio has even less of a chance of getting the nomination than my preferred political fiction, Ron Paul.

If you want to pour your hearts and souls into this election and support the global warming guy, the black guy, the female guy, or the good-looking guy go right ahead. The nation will keep heading in precisely the same direction it is now no matter which of those clowns wins the primary. Then we'll have ourselves a nice general election where we get to choose between an asshole and a dick. No matter the outcome we are guaranteed to either get fucked or shit on.

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

» Speaking of a--holes Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Speaking of a--holes Posted by: edgar_michel
» The Democrats aren't that smart, edgar. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Karl Rove isn't a--hole material... Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Gore deserves a second chance because Bush cheated in 2000.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 28, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How George W. stole the 2000 general election is worth revisiting because next year a new group of young adults will vote for the first time. Plus the rest of us need a refresher course. Otherwise, as the axiom goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. And there can be no doubt that Republicans will be up to their old tricks in 2008 -- trying to steal elections.

Looking back at 2000, besides president of the United States, then Texas Governor Bush was running for the more important position of commander-in-chief. For the welfare of our armed forces, we the people needed to judge his fitness to serve as America's top military leader. Full disclosure of Dub-ya's National Guard history was and is an inalienable right paid for by U.S. soldiers, sailors and aviators who lost their lives in all past conflicts.

In the 1998 book, The Stuff of Heroes, its author, Major General William A. Cohen, USAF RES Ret., listed eight Universal Laws of Leadership. Number one was to "maintain absolute integrity."

Former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogelman said in the Forward to Cohen's book that "integrity in professional relationships remained the singularly most important attribute of any leader."

Time and again, in virtually every publication written about military leadership, integrity is one of the most crucial factors to consider. Yet when reporters confronted candidate Bush about his missing Guard time, he ducked their questions and changed the subject.

Dub-ya knew his evasiveness was wrong. He was a mature adult with a history degree from Yale. But quite clearly in his selfish twisted mind, he had no choice. The 2000 election was too close to call. Disclosing his AWOL military service would most certainly have caused some of the 25 million war veterans and active duty personnel to switch their support to Al Gore, who served in Vietnam and won the Bronze Star.

Despite Shrub's ability to hide his past transgressions, he still lost the popular election by 538,000 votes and only became our 43rd president after winning Florida's Electoral College with a paper-thin margin of 537 ballots. A mere 300-vote swing would have made former Army Sgt. Gore the winner.

Of the thousands of enlisted servicemen who supported Bush in the Sunshine State, how many do you suppose would have voted as Democrats after learning he had shirked his sworn military duty during the Vietnam War?

Three hundred, perhaps?

How about a slam-dunk 3,000 -- the reason Bush cheated in 2000 and did so four years later. Winning obviously meant everything to him; being an honest candidate with integrity did not.

For details about Dub-ya’s dishonorable military service, including his falsified White House biography I found on a U.S. State Department website and reported to the Boston Globe, visit my nonprofit website, King-George.biz, which features 60 cartoons, photos and other Bushwhacking illustrations.

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

» "Deserves"? Posted by: edith
» RE: "Deserves"? Posted by: Curio
» Follow the Bouncing Ball Posted by: edith
» Thanks for the response Posted by: Curio
» If you're not too busy... Posted by: edith
» I wasn't too busy... Posted by: Curio
» Will do, Hugh. Posted by: Curio
Truly pathetic article
Posted by: xi_people on Jun 28, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The body politic is crying out for a "savior" -- someone to ride in on a white horse and "clean up" this absolutely rotten, corrupt system.

Well, guess what? Just like with "christianity" such a savior does not exist. Amerikka is headed for a monumental collapse, just like the bloated, arrogant empires that preceded it in history. Nothing is going to stop this from happening.

Al Gore is just as much beholden to the elite interests behind the scenes as any other candidate for president. No one who doesn't have their support will have a chance at being "elected". And even if the impossible happened and a so-called outsider won, what good would it do? The other two branches of government, with which this person would have to cooperate, remain thoroughly corrupt and would bury him (or her) just as sure as I'm sitting here typing this.

Face it, no one is going to save this country. Not Al Gore, not Hillary, not Obama... none of them.

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

» RE: Truly pathetic article Posted by: edgar_michel
Wow...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 28, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess Alternet finally got bored with the great Not-so-white hope Barrak Obama.

So now they want to depend on their Gore-ssiah again. The same one who did so little before.

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

» .5w + .5b = B? Posted by: edith
» Review Class Posted by: edith
» RE: eview Class Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: .5w + .5b = B? Posted by: Curio
» RE: .5w + .5b = B? Posted by: edith
» RE: .5w + .5b = B? Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: Wow... Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Wow... Posted by: sui_generis
» It is? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Gore/Kucinich in '08
Posted by: Christie on Jun 28, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Al Gore as President and Dennis Kucinich as Vice President would give us an administration with the experience, integrity and vision that America needs to regain our democracy.

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

» RE: Gore/Kucinich in '08 Posted by: peacefullaim
May Blogging be the Pundit of the future
Posted by: Christie on Jun 28, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I turned the above comment around because i hope we can and I think we might do it in time for '08 Primaries. It seems to me that the Blogesphere is already largely responsible for bringing Al Gore's name front and center even though MSM saw others as the forerunners and therefore the only ones to consider.

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

NADER/GORE '08
Posted by: kbest on Jun 28, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yea, now that's the real ticket.

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

» RE: NADER/GORE '08 Posted by: edgar_michel
the Left for Gore?
Posted by: scaliad on Jun 28, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To think that if Alternet spent a fraction of the time talking about the REAL progressive candidate, Kucinich may be higher in the polls than he currently is. Instead Alternet spends it’s time posting attack ads against Kucinich for his decision to debate on Fox News. Although Gore is great on many issues he has a record of being moderate on many important issues. Now that Gore is out of office it is easy for him to state liberal opinions, but how about the support of people that are in office and that have promoted liberal policy. To think that while Kucinich has been in office he has consistently opposed the war and it's funding, proposed the creation of a Department of Peace, Single Payer Universal Health Care, Universal Pre-K education, a raise in the minimum wage to over $8 an hour and a change in the economic structure to include rights for the laborers and an end to NAFTA and other Free Trade programs. Dennis has also been one of the strongest advocates for defending our civil liberties and rights by consistently opposing the Patriot Act and ease dropping programs. It's a shame that Alternet and other progressive fail to understand that Kucinich remains an advocate for our values even when the left continues to ignore him. Many people state that they want a president that is honest but when one comes around they always have the excuse that they are unelectable and then settle for the same old moderate candidates. In the process of doing so the left continues to scratch their heads a few years later wondering why things never change. We are at a crossroad in world history, and we have the choice to impact change. My vote continues to be for Kucinich as I support his genuine efforts for a sustained dialogue of peace and hope.

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

» RE: the Left for Gore? Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: the Left for Gore? Posted by: sui_generis
» RE: the Left for Gore? Posted by: peacefullaim
» Excellent post. Posted by: WhatNow?
bigtime
Posted by: pnut on Jun 28, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Al,he would make a wonderful president and that is why I am mad, I think he should of fought for the presidency when he won it, we would not be in this mess we are in, we voted for him he won but we got Mr. Bush & Co.. I have to vote for him if he runs, but I like Edwards, he would make a great president. I dont know if a good man can win, the news media controls all of our lifes and we know how they vote. If they would do their job we would get rid of Mr. Bush & Co., but the news media have no guts. Bill Davidson

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

» RE: bigtime Posted by: scaliad
» RE: bigtime Posted by: edgar_michel
Let's Move On
Posted by: FeralCat on Jun 28, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to create the White Horse and not wait for some white knight or savior or Messiah. We need to elect a vision not a man or a woman. I voted for Gore, but not all that enthusiastically. I was unhappy with what has happened to the Democratic Party in the last 30 years as it left behind working Americans. NAFTA was a debacle and part of Gore's problem was his condescension towards Perot and Perot turned out to be right. And has been noted above, the guy is not a fighter. He's a professor. In that I see Obama as the most similar to Gore. Gore is an Eeyore Democrat. He's somebody you know is right. He's a realist, but he makes you sad more than energized. He's a Cassandra. Cassandra was always right, but she sure was a wet blanket. We are in a world of hurt. We need a fighter, a people's advocate. A lobbyist for the people, as Truman once said. But we also need someone who can lift us up. An optimist who has a world vision but who can start bringing America back together. I think that's John Edwards. He's joined the movement. Forward America. Cut to the REvolution.

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

» RE: Let's Move On Posted by: edgar_michel
There is NO PROGRESSIVE Dem or Repub - never has been
Posted by: DCostello2 on Jun 28, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore IS NOT a PROGRESSIVE candidate. Dennis Kucinich IS NOT a PROGRESSIVE candidate. There are NO PROGRESSIVE Democrat candidates.

The Democratic party is just as much a Big Busine$$ party as the Republican party. There is NO DEMOCRAT candidate that supports SINGLE PAYER healthcare. There is NO DEMOCRAT candidate that truly supports ENDING WAR. Al Gore is the SAME Al Gore that he was - a corporate WANK. Al Gore's electric bill could feed 30 children a month. Ever stop to figure out how much CARBON AL HAS RELEASED with his airplanes to everywhere.

If you really want a PROGRESSIVE candidate, VOTE GREEN!!!

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

Kucinich IS NOT a PROGRESSIVE Candidate - he's the GATEKEEPER
Posted by: DCostello2 on Jun 28, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite what everyone claims, Dennis is not a PROGRESSIVE candidate. Dennis is the GATEKEEPER so that all the "good D's" won't leave the party. You can be a "good Democrat" and still feel like a rebel by voting for Dennis in the primary and then voting "D" regardless in the election. This is exactly the kind of sheeple the Dems want - "good D's".

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

Don't rely on a politician to solve your problems.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 28, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to reform politics, the thing to do is to get the big money out of politics - but the new Supreme Court appointed by Bush is dedicated to protecting the influence of big corporations in politics.

What this means is that the candidates who are most willing to prostitute themselves to the corporatocracy are the ones who will get the most campaign dollars, as well as the positive media coverage.

The corporate media plays a huge role in selecting the presidential candidates for each party via selective coverage of candidates. This amounts to free advertising for candidates that the corporate owners of the media approve of.

This is why Edwards and Kucinch are routinely smeared or ignored in the corporate press and on cable news networks. This is why polls showing that Ron Paul was the favored Republican candidate were removed from CNN's website. The ideal corporate matchup would be Hillary vs. Giuliani - no matter who wins, the corporatocracy wins.

Thus, we will probably see more and more efforts by the media to control the outcome of the Democratic primaries in order to get a corporate candidate. The corporate vote-counters will probably try and swing the primaries in that direction as well.

Given the problems with voter rolls, the ousting of US attorneys, and the privatized and proprietary electronic voting systems, expect the 2008 election to be just as problematic as the last three.

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

Clinton / Gore!
Posted by: Crazy H on Jun 28, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This would solve all our problems in one fell swoop - 87.3% of conservatives would die of strokes on election eve. Rush Limbone would choke on his own bile. Bill O'Lielie's head would explode and somebody would finally dump a bucket of water on Anne Coltface.

The rest of the GOP would move to Iran soon thereafter, and America would have a little elbow room.

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

» RE: Clinton / Gore! Posted by: peacefullaim
Lookism!?!?!?!!
Posted by: vkobaya on Jun 28, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all you idiots, nitwits and morons who won't support Kucinich because he doesn't look like a president, I have the ideal candidate for you, Paris Hilton. That is what you want to lead your nation. Your stupidity turns my stomach. You have called him all sort of names based on his appearance despite his vastly superior intellect and moral stance. Good God! George Bush has represented our nation at the conference table with world leaders!!!!!! I've got to say one thing about the rest of the world leaders, you have to admire their ability to act. Wild horse would not have been agle to drag me to a table with Bush, I would feel so humiliated by being expected to treat that idiot as an equal. In Kucinich you have a man of the highest moral character, integrity, intelliigence, and uncompromising on his principles. If you still think he doesn't look presidential, vote for Paris Hilton.

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

Gore?!?
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jun 28, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm beginning to think some people really have a Savior-Complex with this whole Gore thing. What makes people believe he'll be any better than Clinton or Obama, Giulianni or Bloomberg? Have we forgotten that the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy (and the "Defense of Marriage Act") were signed while Gore was VP? Have we forgotten his lack of advocacy in ending the use of nuclear power and/or finding a safe way/place to store it? Have we forgotten his silence on Clinton's gutting of the US welfare programs? Education? Have we forgotten Gore silence on the US-influenced sanctions against Iraq; Gore's silence on the Clinton/US bombing of Iraq til he left office? Gore wants to curb global warming but is silent on our current economic system (Capitalism) which in a way necessitates pulling resources from the earth which degrade it even more. When the Supreme Court stepped in and illegally called the Presidency for Bush, Gore said (as Speaker of the House!) NOTHING! Waco anyone? Sorry, but our problems are far too endemic for Gore to fix them as a figure head and in many ways, he may be worse than Bush: at least we know where Bush stands and what he wants to do. With Gore, he'll smile in your face as his friends rape your mother.

2 cents.

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

» RE: Gore?!? Posted by: Curio
» RE: Gore?!? Posted by: dover23
» RE: Gore?!? Posted by: skepticgod
» A Tree's Best Friend Posted by: Conservasaurus
Gore? Charisma?
Posted by: PeaceLove on Jun 28, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Har har, what's this new obsession with Gore? The guy is as dull as a lump of coal. Have you actually seen any of his recent appearances? He takes forever to say almost nothing!

No one in the field has Bill Clinton charisma yet. I think Edwards has some real charisma, as does Obama. But Gore? Unelectable bore.

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

» RE: Gore? Charisma? Posted by: Curio
Gore?
Posted by: fcs25 on Jun 28, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore is your man if you like someone that jumps to conclusions without scientific fact.He in reality is a dead head politician.

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

Gore Gave It up
Posted by: Sparks56 on Jun 28, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]