Climate right for Gore run in 2008

[cal04]

Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent

AL Gore wowed Britain's top literary festival yesterday, a week after his film on climate change won a standing ovation at the Cannes film festival. The former US vice-president's triumphant appearances in Europe are being closely watched in the US, where Democratic Party strategists are wondering whether voters in the 2008 presidential election might share the new enthusiasm for the man who narrowly lost to George W. Bush in 2000.

"I used to be the next president of the United States," Gore said in his standard self-deprecating introduction, but he is clearly revelling in having regained the status of "potential next president". At 58, Gore is rapidly gaining momentum as a possible challenger to front runner Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and that momentum can only be helped by suggestions that his film An Inconvenient Truth could win this year's Oscar for best documentary.

Gore's main role in Cannes was to introduce the film, but at the book festival in the small Welsh village of Hay on Wye yesterday he spoke for 90 minutes without showing the film and more than 2000 people paid pound stg. 35 ($85) to hear him. Gore insists his motivation in returning to the spotlight after six years of keeping a relatively low profile is to raise awareness of climate change, rather than to revive his political career. But when it was put to him in a discussion before his address that his refusal to rule out a 2008 comeback was gaining attention for his environmental campaign, he conceded he had long learned the value of "constructive ambiguity".

Graydon Carter, influential editor of the glossy magazine Vanity Fair, travelled to Hay for the annual book festival, where he called Gore's film "the most important documentary that will come out this year or any year". Carter, a fierce Bush critic, said Gore had two credentials any successful Democrat candidate needed: a record of opposing the Iraq war and a commitment to fight climate change. Gore could hardly be more committed to the issue of climate change.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19313664-2703,00.html

[theabbot]

1. Disturbingly, I find the prospect exciting.

This from a reluctant Nader voter. Well, at least the Gorebot is showing a spine nowadays.

Too bad Finegold can't win.

[DesertRat]

2. Umm...

Gorebot?? Are you sure you're in the right place? :patriot:

[theabbot]

3. Absolutely.

Surely the tent is big enough for people who are disgusted with both parties but hold their nose for the Dems every two years?

Anyway, the Gorebot reference is from the great Tom Tomorrow.

[qazplm]

4. if you hold your nose for Gore

and reluctantly voted for Nader, I'd suspect there is almost no candidate that could get your enthusiastic vote.

Especially considering even Feingold has gone off the purity trail a few times.

[theabbot]

5. Well...

Feingold, not Finegold. I apparently can't spell; I hope you don't think I'm a Freeper (-;.

Well, I did vote for Nader, but I do regret it now. Then again, that was six years ago, and I didn't know what a moron Bush was.

Then again again, may I remind you that Gore failed to bring up any issues which were actually relevant (except global warming), and that he was veep under a presidency that essentially completed much of Reagan's work? May I also remind you that both parties have long been purchased by special interests? And that Gore's running mate was to the Right of Bush on many issues? And his awful wife's work with the censorship issue? Yes, sure, Gore has largely redeemed himself since his run for the presidency-notably on the issue of Iraq. But it would have been hard to know, without reading between the lines, what the substantial difference between the candidates was.

And surely you can't blame me for being disgusted with the Democrats.

Is Feingold pure? No, he didn't get to be a US Senator by being pure. But he's done the right thing time after time after time-and in a "coin-toss" state at that.

I'd love to do more than hold my nose for other candidates. I don't need them to be pure or agree with me on every issue. They just need to step up to the plate. And I'd be somewhat enthused with Gore, as I said before, because he's actually doing that now. But I wish we could get more new leaders, because we need new blood.

[mike_c]

6. I was very reluctant to vote for Gore in 2000, but I think...

...if he runs in 2008 the election will be his to lose. And he would have to screw up pretty badly to lose it.