Why Al Gore is the Democrat's Best Bet in 2008

[wyldwolf]

I suspect that Al Gore will be annoyed at me for writing this article. He has never so much as hinted to me that he is or will be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. At most, he has been coy about the matter--as he was coy about it on television last Sunday. Still, I want to assure the reader that I have not written it in consultation with Gore at all. I haven't even hinted to him that I am writing it. This is written out of solidarity with those political moderates and liberals who are desperate to find a nominee about whom both their minds and spirits can be intellectually sure and psychologically fervent.

The first pragmatic reason to be for Gore, then, is that he is electable. He won once. He can win again. This is not simply a slogan; it is a serious thought. I find, moreover, that there is an undercurrent of guilt around the country about the fact that the presidency was taken from him by a vote of 5 to 4, with the 5 votes coming from Supreme Court justices who, on any other matter, would otherwise have reflexively deferred on a matter of Florida votes to the power of the Florida courts whose judgment would have resulted in Al Gore being president and not George Bush. These "strict constructionists" and "originalists" suddenly turned activists. That Bush has been such a clot as a president, such a golem magnifies Gore's stature as a thinking person with beliefs he can defend honestly and persuasively. Imagine what would be the outcome of a rematch. My guess is that if there were a poll asking voters whom they had voted for in 2000, Gore would win by a landslide. I know people who are actually ashamed of having cast their ballots for George Bush. But Gore will not be running against Bush....

...I was first for Al Gore for president when he ran in the primaries in 1988. He lost to Michael Dukakis in that year's suicide of the Democratic Party, an ignominious campaign by a smug and utterly disconnected governor from the only state that had voted for George McGovern. Jesse Jackson was the celebrity candidate, with his hip-hop language that some patronizing folk will still tell you is eloquence. Had Al Gore been the nominee in 1988, he likely would have defeated George Herbert Walker Bush, and the nation would have been saved the grim experience of his unlikely and uncomprehending dynasty.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060619&s=peretz062206

[MemphisTiger]

1. Let me say that I love Al Gore and hope he wins

but it will depend on who the other side nominates. It would be quite easy to paint him as the "Gore Loser" or "I want a recount Al" It's childish I know, but so are our voters. He would have to come out swinging with a PLAN for all the things like Iraq, economy, and spending in washington. Without a well communicated plan he would be dead in the water as would any other candidate against a strong republican candidate. With that said, AL GORE 2008, you have my vote.

[kentuck]

2. But the country doesn't need any "establishment" President...

That includes a lot of Democratic names which I will not mention. We are experiencing a radical transformation, for the worse, and the next President will need to be just as radical, for the better, in order to undo the damage that has been done and that is being done as we speak. We need a radical leader.

[ladjf]

7. They desperately need a leader that they won't be ashamed of.

Gore is that person. (Although there are several other good Democrats that would easily fill that bill.)

[Mabus]

24. It isn't just about us

we also need a Democratic president whom the rest of the world can respect and we need someone to lead the US from being a rogue superpower to a member of the global community. The best way to do this is to elect someone the rest of the world can trust. While there are other Democratic leaders who have this quality, I have to say that Gore is the one I favor for numerous reasons. First among these reasons is that Gore has a vision and a record that goes along with it.

[durrrty libby]

3. I'd love to read more of that article.

Can you post some more?

AL..hear the drum beat.

[wyldwolf]

4. It's a free registration

The writer trashes both Hillary and Dean. Fun stuff.

[ladjf]

5. Almost everyone in the Country trusts Gore. (Except for Imus)

[Pirate Smile]

6. Here is more:

Now, I disagree with Gore about Iraq ... and, frankly, I've sometimes rankled at his Iraq rhetoric. He and I talk about Iraq quite often. This may be no comfort to you. It is to me. But, on foreign and military policy generally, his record going back decades is tough-minded without being belligerent, conciliatory without being soft. I do not doubt his resolve about Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush's resolve much more. This has become by now a political calculus for him, calibrated by Karl Rove. On domestic economic matters, Gore is a free-market realist rather than a free-market fanatic. The issues he has tended to are issues on which he is truly expert.

He is not afraid of science and technology because he knows science and technology. And, yes, he did more to foster the democratization of the Internet than anyone in public life anywhere. That democratization is always and, in fact, under threat right now, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Gore would protect it from the corporate vultures.

-snip-
Let me tell you a few words about the question as to whether Al Gore has changed. Actually, to me he is essentially the same young man I met in a Harvard freshman seminar 41 years ago: inquisitive, respectful of learning and scholarship, emotionally connected, committed to his friends and family, incandescently smart, believing in an order of the universe he still genuinely refers to as God. These are not easily carried into the universe of politics, where cynicism leaves little space for authenticity. But he fought against the demons of triangulation that subvert moral clarity. Al also came out whole, very whole. Yes, he was singed by the president's troubles that the oh, so facile president made for himself. Gore took the advice of some of the usual Democratic four-flusher professionals in his campaign in the year 2000. Right nowI make this assertion with complete confidence: that Gore would not, will not defer his own instincts or convictions to anyone else. Yes, he can be persuaded. But he cannot be pushed.

[KoKo]

74. Thanks...didn't want to register for whole article...but it "smells' to me

in that Marty Peretz who has done more with NR to demine Democratic Ideals now is cozying up to Gore. It almost makes me think he's thinking he can "co-opt" Gore for "his interests" while many of us see Gore as BREAKING with the DLC/Repug Interests.

I think it's a bit of sly Repug "the Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" crap from Peretz who is a total status quo/lover of Neo-cons (although he'd NEVER admit it) swill from the Repugs trying to get their "claws" into Gore.

:shrug: What do you think. I wish I could read the whole article ...even the first paragraph had this "Lefty" cringing...your little bits more got my radar going. What's in this for Peretz...that's how I look at these "Media Whores." They look for which side their bread is buttered on and Politics to them is what they get out of it.

[agio]

8. Except he's not going to run for Pres.

I think he has made that pretty clear. You'd have to draft him.

Not saying that's not a bad idea...

[MemphisTiger]

9. He hasn't said either way yet...

I'm hoping he has a change of heart and runs since the last election.

[agio]

10. He has dismissed it several times

Most recently on David Letterman.

... Though, of course, "never say never" is certainly the rule in politics.

[Mabus]

26. So have others, Hillary, Condi

but it doesn't stop people from wanting and encouraging them to run.

[Scout1071]

14. He has repeatedly said he "has no plans to run." Not the same thing.

He simply cannot come out today and say that he is going to run. Why would he want to walk around for 2 years with that bullseye on his back? He would become a lightning rod. He's playing this just right and I definitely intend to vote for him.

But, I will say that I think he needs convincing. Not to worry, we will draft him.

[Gregorian]

20. Let's watch the Daily Show. He's on next week.

I suspect he'll get the spolight on this question.

I like this thread. I think it nails the nation's subconcious regarding Gore.

[RangerSmith]

11. The country needs a candidate on the Democratic

side they can vote FOR as opposed to against. Dickhead is in office right now because Gore and Kerry were voted against.

As Lewis Black said, (speaking more of 04, than 00)the choice was between "two steaming piles of shit."

Gore, Kerry, and Hillary can't win. Clark or Edwards.... someone other than those three.... I think can.

A Gore canidacy will insure another 4 yrs of Republican rule IMHO.

[AtomicKitten]

12. Hardly.

Al Gore is probably the strongest contender the Democcrats have and one whom I support.

[wyldwolf]

13. Ralph?

[blm]

19. Lewis Black has NO CONCEPT of history to make a remark THAT FALSE.

No difference between the man who has effected this nation's REAL historic record more positively over the last 35 years than any other lawmaker, and Bush who will have effected this nation's historic record the most negatively?

Let Lewis come out and debate that premise.

How weak-minded one would have to be to accept Lewis Black's remark?

Anyone who REALLY understands what he was doing there could read it right - he was a COMIC in a corner with a desperate need to grab on to something that would make him sound like he poxes both parties - he chose a way to do it that had no honesty and no humor. Lame device for the desperate.

[tomreedtoon]

58. He didn't need a "concept of history." Black was right.

What kind of phrase is "concept of history"? You trying to pad out a college term paper or something?

It's understandable to care for anybody who runs against the Republicans, but Gore was just pathetic. Note that he didn't even carry his home state. He was easy for the Limbaugh machine to mock; they put that "he invented the internet" lie all over the media, and Gore wasn't intelligent or passionate enough to fight back. As Kerry would do later, he allowed the right wing to tar and feather him while he remained "aloof."

Black was speaking the truth that he saw - and the audience there pretty much agreed.

[blm]

65. There was NO TRUTH and NO HUMOR in what Black said - he had NOTHING

to say and it showed in his reach to say they were both piles of shit. Humor NEEDS truth to work.

Kerry's record and Bush's record show ZERO SIMILARITIES,

And if you ever BOTHERED To check the Research Forum you would know there many actions taken to counter the swifts, but, media refused to give them the attention or the airtime.

DU Research Forum - get the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[Uncle Joe]

29. Bush is in the White House because

1. The MSM enabled him there while waging a two year "War Against Gore's" integrity as is well documented at the Daily Howler website.

http://dailyhowler.com/

2. The purging of legal American voters who happened to have the same birthday or surname as felons from Florida by Katherine Harris, the imported congressional aide mob stopping the ballot counters from doing their duty, the infamous butterfly ballot that confused twenty plus thousand voters for Gore to vote for Buchanan, the trashing of ballots were the intent of the voter was quiet clear such as punching the hole for Gore and then writing his name at the bottom.

3. The conservative activist Supreme Court which believed they should have the right to vote twice for a President, with their votes superseding the will of the American People. These "states rights" injustices knew their argument was so weak as rule to it a non precedent setting judgment.

Al Gore beat Bush by over a half a million counted votes and no doubt thousands of more uncounted votes in Florida.

2008 is not 2000, the internet is stronger (although the MSM is trying to kill it through their proxies), the MSM's credibility with the American People is in the crapper after disclosures about them taking dictation from the Bush maladministration and cheer leading us to a war with Iraq based on lies, outing our own CIA agent and her company, and Gannon/Guckert, etc. Katrina devastating the Gulf Coast and drowning New Orleans has opened the eyes of many people regarding the threat of global warming, and the people that view "An Inconvenient Truth" will see first hand the real Al Gore not the caricature put upon them by the Bush loving MSM.

[RangerSmith]

34. Most voters not already voting for a Dem

view that the same way you view one of Ann Coulters diatribes....

Sorry...

Look, Katrina was a Category 3 storm that showed how truly inept the Corp Of Engineers, Fema, and the Bush Administration are.

I think trying to push a Cat 3 storm off as the result of Global Warming is only going to make Gore more circumspect to the people any Dem candidate is going to have to have to win... the middle.

YMMV.

Global Warming or not, we will have storms hit major cities and do serious damage because of lack of proper planning.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Maybe I should have been more clear.

While no single hurricane including Katrina can be directly laid to global warming effects. There is a consensus among the leading scientists that warmer water will increase the strength of hurricanes and possibly the number of them.

As you stated Katrina was only a category 3 so if warmer water increases the strength of hurricanes, it is inevitable that we will have an increase of category 4 or 5 and maybe one day category 6 hurricanes, any of which could swamp New Orleans or most other coastal areas. If Katrina had been a five or six, maybe even a 4 the levees still would not hold after improvements.

What I was trying to imply was that the general devastation of the gulf coast and the drowning of a major U.S. City should open the eyes of many people insulated by our artificial world as to he dangers posed by the prospect of more powerful hurricanes as one consequence of global warming.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

43. Warming and hurricanes:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0608-07.htm

New Data Clearly Links Storms and Warming
by Stephen Leahy


BROOKLIN, Canada - Canada's leading scientific society on climate called for urgent government action on climate change at its most recent national conference last week.
Stronger and more frequent hurricanes in summer and stronger winter storms are clearly the result of climate change, according to new scientific studies reported at the 40th annual Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) congress in Toronto.

"Climate change is real, the Kyoto Protocol is an important first step, but we need to do a lot more," Ian Rutherford, CMOS executive-director, told IPS.

"(T)he scientific evidence dictates that in order to stabilise the climate, global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions need to go far beyond those mandated under this Kyoto Protocol," said a statement endorsed by the CMOS membership representing more than 800 public and private scientists.

Although not the first time the Society has made public statements, it has been quite vocal about climate change of late. Part of the reason is that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May.

Another reason is that a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media.

"The Conservative government is listening to them (the sceptics) because they tell them what they want to hear," he said.

No member from Friends of Science presented any papers, viewpoints or even attended the CMOS meeting, Rutherford noted. "They never present their arguments in front of scientists and should not be listened to," he said.

Those sceptics probably would not have enjoyed listening to the first physical evidence linking global warming to increased hurricane activity and intensity presented at the congress.

Using sea surface temperatures of the tropical Atlantic Ocean over many decades, Robert Scott, an oceanographer at the University of Texas, showed that the area that spawns hurricanes has grown dramatically in recent years.

Scott's data shows that since 1970, the eastern side of the Atlantic, near the coast of Africa, has become warmer, topping the 26.5 C. temperature threshold for hurricanes to form. That means that the traditional area where hurricanes get their start has expanded by hundreds of kilometres.

In fact, Scott said, hurricanes have been getting started an average of 500 kilometres further east since 1970, spending more time over warmer water.

While there are other factors involved in hurricane formation, the much larger pool of warm "birthing" waters also means storms can become stronger, since warm water provides fuel for them to grow.

Scott is convinced that global warming has made hurricanes more powerful.

"Humanity has had a discernible impact on hurricanes," he said in media reports.

That remains a controversial view -- but the data is mounting.

There is convincing new evidence that global warming will produce more powerful winter storms over the mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, Steven Lambert, a climate expert at the Meteorological Service of Canada, told the conference.

Lambert examined how future greenhouse gas emissions will affect low pressure systems during the winter using nearly all of the most current computer climate models. The models all concurred that as levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise, low pressure systems, or cyclones as they're called, become stronger but form less often.

"There's a direct relationship between the changes in magnitude of cyclonic events and concentration of greenhouse gases," Lambert said in an interview.

Lambert told IPS that this affect is likely the result of higher temperatures triggering higher rates of evaporation. This means more latent heat is available, resulting in stronger lower pressure systems. Once those huge systems lose all their energy, it may take longer to form news ones, and that may be why the models show fewer cyclones, he said.

Finally, attempts to get the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, to slow the rate of global warming appear to have failed.

Around the world, several large-scale experiments, including a Canadian-led international effort off the coast of Alaska, dumped tonnes of iron particles into parts of the ocean to encourage phytoplankton growth. Plankton growth is limited by the amount of iron in parts of the world's oceans and the plankton growth in the Canadian experiment was visible from the ship and from satellites in space, said Paul Harrison, director of the Atmospheric, Marine and Coastal Environment programme at the University of Hong Kong.

The idea behind these efforts is that plankton absorb carbon dioxide and when they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, effectively trapping the CO2 forever. And while the uncounted trillions of microplankton creatures like diatoms can remove quite a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, very little of that CO2 in the iron "seeding" experiments ended up deep in the ocean.

"This is the first comprehensive measure of the fate of an iron-induced plankton bloom," Harrison said.

The iron-induced plankton had chemical markers in each so their ultimate fate could be tracked. Less than five percent ended up below 120 metre, a depth at which the CO2 would be trapped for a long time, he said.

"It doesn't appear that this will be a very efficient way of reducing CO2 levels," Harrison concluded.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

38. Katrina was a Cat. 5 when it hit NOLA, I believe.

Not only does it appear that there is a direct relationship between global warming and Katrina being Cat. 5 (gulf waters are two degrees warmer than 20 years ago), but I think a large segment of the population gets that.

Although I think the Ann Coulter simile is a little over the top, especially on Uncle's points two and three with healthy percentages agreeing with those contentions, on point one it is essentially true. The War on Gore in campaign 2000 is not yet well understood in the general public. That, however, doesn't make it any less real.

Anyway, I think climate change is a winner politically in 2008. There will be three hurricane seasons between now and election day 2008. It's terrible but true that we are entering into an uptrend in hurricanes at the same time. When people suffer, they wake up. It means tremendous human tragedy coming, but it is our reality.

Also, flooding, tornadoes, wildfires (global warming makes forests drier by increased evaporation)are on the rise. Gore has called it "a nature hike through the Book of Revelations."

Perhaps by the time Gore has the nomination the appropriate campaign slogan will be "What would Noah do?" As Gore has said, the American people may change politically in a nonlinear way as the climate changes in a nonlinear way. The middle is coming to Gore because he is right.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. Correction: was Cat, 3, but,

the point remains. When it hit Florida it was Cat. 1. Before it hit NOLA it was upgraded because of the high temperature in the gulf.

[RangerSmith]

44. the thing is

You can't really find a time where the Gulf of Mexico hasn't seen those same temps during that same time of year.

Hey, it might play in Ohio, but I don't think its going to play on the coast. 1 degree change in water temps does not a monster storm make.

Global warming is dead serious and it's been largely ignored over the years because the folks championing the cause have basically run out screaming the sky is falling with trumped up data way too many times and each time they did it, they knew they were doing it but felt it was the only way to get the publics attention.

All the really succeeded in doing was giving the naysayers and polluting corporate protectors the ammo to debunk many of their claims.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

46. I've seen the temp change reported as two degrees

in the Gulf of Mexico many times (two degrees warmer than 20 years ago). That can make a real difference in the intensity of a hurricane. My understanding is it did just that in the case of Katrina. Gore's movie speaks to that, showing satellite images showing Katrina literally being energized in the Gulf before turning north and striking NOLA.

With respect to your "chicken little" argument, I have two reactions. First, the models have consistently underestimated effects (such as polar melting) and have been revised upwardly since I have been following the issue more closely (1992). In other words, the models are generally being revised due to underestimation of the effects of warming. I would be interested in any examples of the reverse you know about.

Second, the vast majority of PR harm has come from a handful of global warming "skeptics" who have been quoted in a fashion grossly disproportionate to their numbers and their scientific credibility. Gore does a statistical analysis of this in the movie. Have you seen it? If not, I highly recommend it.

Also, I re-post this link in case you missed it. Canadian scientists are linking hurricanes and global warming. NOAA today also made an announcement in that regard today, reported by Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0608-07.htm

[Admiral Loinpresser]

47. dailyhowler.com weighs in,

further to my point. Sorry it wasn't included above-- I just discovered it and thought it relevant. I will take a breather now, I promise!

June 23, 2006

http://dailyhowler.com/

A PERHAPS TOO-CONVENIENT DEBATE: In his new film, An Inconvenient Truth (director: Davis Guggenheim), Al Gore critiques the way climate change has been discussed in the press. In the Boston Globe, Christopher Shea summarized Gore’s presentation:

SHEA (4/9/06): Al Gore, for instance, includes some trenchant journalism criticism in his forthcoming documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." Gore cites work by the UC-San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who examined 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles on global warming published from 1993 to 2003. Oreskes found that precisely none of those articles questioned either that global warming exists or that humans contribute to it. Nevertheless, Gore laments, most news stories about global warming quote a skeptic.

More specifically, Gore cites a 14-year survey of articles about global warming in four major newspapers—the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. According to Gore, this study found that 53 percent of the newspaper articles gave equal weight to what he calls “the scientifically discredited view that human beings play no role in global warming.” According to Gore, the debate has ended in the scientific literature—but has remained quite vibrant in the mainstream press. “No wonder people are confused,” Gore says about this in his book.

Like you, we don’t know the science well enough to evaluate this pair of studies. But we recalled that part of Gore’s film when we read the Post and the Times this morning. Yesterday, a National Academy of Sciences panel ratified the findings of a major climate study. But in both the Post and the Times, this study was dubbed “controversial” right in the opening sentence, and climate dissenters got plenty of space to voice their views on the subject—thereby extending the “controversy.”

We don’t know the science well enough to judge the work of Andrew Revkin (in the Times) or Juliet Eilperin (in the Post). But just last month, Eilperin penned a cheerful profile of “global warming satirist” Roy Spencer, who has launched a “spoof” web site about warming “because he thinks people are overreacting to the threat of climate change.” Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama, turned up that night as a principal source for an hour-long Fox News Channel report—a report which presented only the dissenting view on warming. And wouldn’t you know it? As Eilperin noted in passing, the good-natured Spencer’s humorous site is “funded in part by ExxonMobil.”

In that profile, Eilperin gave us the smiling face of industry-funded dissent. And just one week later, the Post put a second industry-funded dissenter, Fred Smith, on its Sunday magazine cover. That lengthy profile, by Joel Achenbach, was fairly deflating—but it did appear beneath this rather striking synopsis:

WASHINGTON POST (5/28/06): As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback

Industry-funded warming skeptics are still getting plenty of ink in the Post. We can’t really judge this morning’s reports. But seeing Gore’s film made us wonder.

[RangerSmith]

51. to quote...

"With respect to your "chicken little" argument, I have two reactions. First, the models have consistently underestimated effects (such as polar melting) and have been revised upwardly since I have been following the issue more closely (1992). In other words, the models are generally being revised due to underestimation of the effects of warming. I would be interested in any examples of the reverse you know about."

I don't have any issues with the overall majority of some of the data coming out now. Especially in regard to the stuff you speak of above. That's all IMHO very real.

Being brutally honest, I look at a lot of the sites your linking to here the same way I look at something from freeperland or the Drudge Report. It's biased and there is always another biased site trying to debunk it.

IMHO, the truth is almost always found somewhere in the middle. The actual Canadian report and the actual NOAA report which I have read should stand on their own without all the political bias.

I'm old enough to remember the "Nuclear Winter" claims, etc. Those claims didn't come from the skeptics and those types of claims have all hurt the overall credibility of the argument with a lot of voters today. And in the end, I think that really matters more than anything else.

Hell, even saying the levees wouldn't have busted during a Cat 2 is pure BS IMHO and we don't need Global Warming to generate Cat 2's either.

If the overall argument was being made based on what happened to Pass Christian where not a sngle residence was left habitable I might be more apt to think it was anything other than politicizing the issue. And even then, the Corp of Engineers and the powers that were in charge of the funding and building the levees in LA would still be inline to recieve the majority of the blaime in regard to what happened in NOLA, IMHO.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

55. A difference in quality, not just political spectrum

is evident to me in your comparison of websites.

Being brutally honest, I look at a lot of the sites your linking to here the same way I look at something from freeperland or the Drudge Report. It's biased and there is always another biased site trying to debunk it.

I went back and looked at my links on this thread:

1) American Prospect; 2) Common Dreams; and 3) The Daily Howler.

I honestly cannot understand your complaint with respect to 1) and 2). While they are both fairly characterized as progressive, they were cited for factual information, which is legitimate as far as I can tell. As to 3), while the Howler can be fairly characterized as progressive, he cites data and then raises comparisons between Gore's critique (i.e. unwarranted use of global warming "skeptics") and the occurrence of that very same phenomenon in the MSM coverage. Your attack strikes me as ad hominem, rather than dealing with the linked material. Bob Somerby, btw, is no ideologue-- he does not hesitate to criticize liberal bloggers.

But I must disagree with your comparison with Drudge or freeperland. Those sources are notoriously unreliable. I cannot vouch for Common Dreams (although I read it occaisionally) but I can do so for The American Prospect and The Daily Howler. They are both extremely more reliable Drudge of freeperland. FWIW, I would consider all three of my sources more reliable on political issues than the NYT or Washington Post, which both show a great deal of Republican bias.

That claim may sound strange to you, but if you will read Lapdogs, by Eric Boehlert, I think you will discover a great deal of documentation for right-wing bias in the MSM. Or simply read dailyhowler.com for exhaustive documentation demonstrating the dysfunctionality of the MSM.

I am also old enough to remember the Nuclear Winter controversy. It arose out of nuclear proliferation in the early '80s. The claims as I remember them were based on sound science as to what would happen in the event of a full scale nuclear exchange. Just because such an exchange did not occur does not vitiate the basis for the claims, so I don't take your point.

As to the truth-lies-in-the-middle argument, it is inviting and often wise. But there are many instances when it isn't appropriate. In a digital system, a middle voltage is undefined-- only a 1 or 0 is useful. An accused defendant is either guilty or not guilty. Churchill was right and Chamberlain was wrong. Darwin was right and creationists are wrong. Global warming is real and anthropogenically caused. The "skeptics" are wrong, yet they continue to get vastly disproportionate coverage in the MSM. The middle way was not appropriate during the American Revolution, the Civil War, during Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, WWII or now.

Of course I am trying to politicize climate change. Scientists are saying hurricanes are gaining in intensity and frequency because of climate change. We are stuck in inertia while a train is coming down the tracks at us. The polar icecaps and the Greenland ice shelf are melting at an accelerating rate.

Not to act with great energy now is as foolish as was Chamberlain, in my view, but with more dire consequences than experienced in WWII.

Finally, as to world view. Your comments about Gore as VP elsewhere on this thread would lead me to believe that you are not aware of what has been dubbed the War on Gore in campaign 2000, which I believe is the Rosetta Stone in understanding contemporary MSM political reporting. Are you aware of the phenomenon? If so, do you agree that it happened? I ask these questions not to derail the thread, but rather in an attempt to see if we can generally agree on what is happening in American politics today.

[RangerSmith]

68. trotting out all the kudos and dittos and awards... well...

I know some of the right wing sites win awards as well ...

Hey, to me it's like going to a Catholic website or a Southern Baptist site. I know the info is going to be presented in a certain point of view and I'm typically not looking for a point of view in regard to news and events. I admit to being pretty jaded about the state of politics and media overall in this country. You seem to assume that the MSM's war on Gore was a right wing bias.... my take is that it was much more bigtime a DLC vs DNC war. Disliking Gore doesn't make you right wing. Disliking Bush doesn't make you left wing.

There really can be much more to all this than the simple "you are either with us or against us" meme the parties use to keep the faithful at the trough. Hell, you see that as a standard response here and at the right wing sites.... well you are obviously a "fill in the hated group of your choice" if you don't agree with that! It's just childish.

As far as the Nuclear Winter .... I was speaking about those that took the science of Nuclear Winter past a nuclear event and claimed we would be seeing this playout by the year 2000 because of the Greenhouse Effect.

One of the reasons I think both sides fail miserable with those that aren't "attached" .... and I really think those that are "attached" are blind to this... is that both sides really do think they are smarter than everybody else. When you politicize an issue you lose the middle because they aren't quite as stupid as you want them to be. Don't trump up the BS and you'll have a chance to hold them. Otherwise, they see you as no different than the other side and honestly, they really dislike the other side. Read into that what you want.

Hope your having a nice weekend!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

69. I think you and I have a lot of middle ground in common.

As to your first paragraph, I agree with it in general. The only thing I would take issue with is this:

You seem to assume that the MSM's war on Gore was a right wing bias.... my take is that it was much more bigtime a DLC vs DNC war.

I don't think the War on Gore was due to a right-wing bias. But your conclusion was reasonable based on the way I expressed myself on the issue upthread. I didn't express myself well.

What I really meant was that the MSM attacked Gore in a way that heavily favored Bush. I don't believe Ceci Connoly at WaPo or Kit Seelye at NYT, etc., were doing it out of right-wing political bias at all. They simply hated Gore for nonpolitical, petty reasons. I believe the evidence for that is overwhelming. The press actually booed Gore at the second Gore Bradley debate in NH in October, 1999. This is the only time in my life (maybe American history) that a major candidate was booed by the press.

Here's one of many articles on the subject:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/00/3/hall.asp

As to nuclear winter I wasn't aware anybody had applied it to global warming. Apparently you saw somebody do it, but I never did.

As to your last paragraph, I admit there is BS on this site, but I try not to add to it. ;-) Also as to the term "politicize," we probably have a different view of the term. If you mean using BS, then yeah, it's a bad thing. But to me the term means trying to get political action. For example, US healthcare needs to be "politicized" because we have almost 50 million uninsured.

I agree with the "with us or against us" sentiment you expressed. It's simplistic thinking which does nobody any good. BTW, I believe most Americans are "progressive" under my definition, meaning, wanting universal healthcare, access to higher education and out of Iraq. The shame is that the majority of them don't vote at all. Here's where I think "they" do need to be smarter. If everyone voted, this country would be a lot better off.

PS I am having a good weekend. Same to you!

[RangerSmith]

72. Indeed,

there is a lot of common ground!

And yes, we do have different defintions of politicize. Mine would be more along the lines of... trumping up the facts ... pandering... pretty much pulling out all the stops to further an agenda..

I will say that I think the problem with the middle and while they are still not backing a dem health care plan or universal health care is because of the choices currently offered.

We have a choice between the "same old shit" plan, or "tax the shit out of someone or something and let the govt run it all."

I think the middle doesn't see either as particularly appealing. Yes, they want major change, but they want to see more options on the table. Probably why they aren't voting either. ;)

[RangerSmith]

41. I don't know...

The middle remembers Al was there for 8 yrs and didn't even have a pet project... much less do much of anything noteworthy on Global Warming.

I do agree the public will be taking a long look at a candidates stance on Global Warming, I just don't think that today Gore is electable nor do i think it will be a top 3 issue.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. You must be joking:

The middle remembers Al was there for 8 yrs and didn't even have a pet project... much less do much of anything noteworthy on Global Warming.

REGO was one of Gore's projects and got reasonable coverage. It reduced the fed. gov. headcount to its smallest in 40-50 years.

He also played an important role in national security. He worked hard on terrorism and was instrumental in US intervention in the Balkans. That was when the US was *stopping* the genocide of muslims.

He was the most vocal lobbyist on environmental policay in the White House. And he personally negotiated the Kyoto Accord. Bill Turque's biography of Gore documents these points, as does the Maraniss biography. Bob Zelnick's is more of a right-wing treatment. Gore's connection to Kyoto has been widely reported.

Gore's accomplishments are the most significant of any VP in the last 50 years (although Cheney is admittedly more *influential*). I would argue Kyoto is one of the most sigificant acts of statesmanship in US history, rivaling Ben Franklin's diplomacy with France, Woodrow Wilson's internationalism and FDR's Lend-Lease in 1940.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Thanks for the addition Admiral,

and you are correct more powerful hurricanes are just one symptom of global warming.:hi:

[Admiral Loinpresser]

56. Hey Uncle! n/t

[errorbells]

37. and I was just thinking.....

while reading this thread that GORE/EDWARDS or GORE/CLARK
might win.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. If he's the '08 nominee

I would be voting FOR him rather than against the Republican. I say this as someone who voted for Nader in 2000, and whose '04 Kerry vote was more against Bush than for Kerry.

Al Gore will be a very attractive candidate as long as he maintains authenticity and runs as himself, rather than as who he thinks the voters want him to be. I think that's what his problem was in 2000.

Clark is my top choice for '08, but I could get behind Gore if he is the nominee.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

70. Crunchy, do you play online poker?

I've seen a pretty successful poker player on one of the sites. Is that you?

[Crunchy Frog]

71. No, I can't say I do.

I don't even know how to play offline poker.:) I've googled my username, and I'm apparently not the only Crunchy Frog out there. :shrug:

[fujiyama]

61. Lewis Black is a funny guy

but comedians are usually not where I would go first for informed political discourse. Often times, with exceptions like the ultimate RW hack, Dennis Miller, comedians must rip on both sides as "being the same". Black, like Maher, Carlin, and Jon Stewart are cynical. Hell, I'm sure Black would rip on Nader or whomever else as well. That keeps them honest.

Plus, haven't you noticed by now that Black rips a LOT more on repukes than Dems? At least that's what I've noticed on his segments on the Daily Show. And he smacked down a RWer at a live performance he had in Ann Arbor a while back. I think he would realize that there would be a difference with Gore in charge of the country instead of Bush.

And really what is it that makes Clark and Edwards so special compared to the rest other than the fact that they haven't been in the spotlight as much as the others? I'm not saying I don't like Edwards or Clark, but it might be argued that Edwards didn't add much to the '04 campaign, that he couldn't have Kerry win it, and he's only a one term senator. And it might be argued that Clark's lack of "traditional" political experience (governor, VP, legislator, for example) makes him difficult to gauge.

Now I'm necessarily saying those are true, but the media and the other side will always give reasons to vote against our candidate.

[lildreamer316]

64. OUT of your mind. Nice try. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

15. Maybe I should think twice about supporting Gore

[IndyOp]

16. You should think twice & thrice about supporting any candidate -

Why, in particular, does this article cause you to think twice?

[iconoclastNYC]

18. Considering the source.

"The New Republic" -- which is practically a Republican rag and definitely Neocon.

When the DLC and the Hamiltonian Democrats are singing Gore's praises it makes me think that his Progressive turn is just to keep up appearances.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

28. Consider the actual source.

Martin Peretz is Gore's friend and backed him enthusiastically in 2000. I won't defend TNR, they have lots of morons writing for it. But TNR is no where near as easy to pigeon-hole as Fox News or The Weekly Standard. Peretz may be the only Gore backer there, but that status is legitimate. Peretz strikes me as a fairly liberal, but independent, thinker.

[wyldwolf]

17. I don't think anyone ever expected you to support him.

[IndyOp]

22. The DLC is a horror -- I'll need to hear more about Gore and

what he thinks about the DLC supporting him. We live right now in an extremely, extremely "corporate" skewed nation. We'd be making a big shift just by moving from "free market/unregulated capitalism" to "regulated capitalism" in which democracy is more important than capitalism; in which corporations are required to follow laws that protect workers, environment, the nation.

Who know why DLC or New Republic are supporting Gore right now -- but I won't play "the friend of my enemy is my enemy."

Gore is not my ideal. Dennis Kucinich is my ideal.

My chances of getting Dennis in the WH in 2008: Low.

A Dem in WH and Senate and Congress - we could get some *serious* election reform law passed that could lead to an honest democracy in future.

[iconoclastNYC]

23. I think i'm leaning towards Feingold

I think "Feingold Republicans" could be a real possibility. Every libertarian leaning Republican I know says they could vote for Feingold becuase he's not a typical Democrat and he doesn't "go along, to get along".... I think Feingold could appeal to about 15-20% of Republicans because of his opposition to Bush's spying and leading the filibuster against the Patriot act.

I think it's important for DUers to realize that there are a lot of people on the right who hate this president because of how he's expanding the executive branch. These guys fear increased Government power.

I think a Feingold candidancy would appeal to them.

I want to back you up on the DLC. David Sirota explains why the Fortune 500 funds the DLC: "One of the ways that corporate America got smarter was that they began to understand that there was value to them in infiltrating the Democratic Party. They realized that owning the Republican Party was not enough, and that grabbing a chunk of the Democratic Party -- even a small chunk -- would allow the system as a whole to radically shift to the right far more quickly than if they just pursued a binary strategy with one party. We used to have one big business party and now we have one and a third -- or one and a quarter -- and that quarter is really integral to what's allowed the hostile takeover to move towards completion -- or at least to intensify."

http://www.alternet.org/story/36560

[IndyOp]

50. I love Sirota's work on the DLC. Thanks! (nt)

[Totally Committed]

73. Sirota has nailed them well...

I have to agree with you on that!

TC

[wyldwolf]

30. heh!

Who know why DLC or New Republic are supporting Gore right now

Because until there is evidence to the contrary, Gore is DLC.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

32. The rift between Gore and the DLC is well known.

It started when Gore decided on a populist message in 2000 (The People, Not The Powerful), and was sealed by his opposition to the IWR and subsequent endorsement of Howard Dean.

If you need an article on it, I'm sure I can find something. My wife has read that to me a couple of times.

[wyldwolf]

33. I've seen the article where a DLC writer critiques the 2000 campaign

All it proves is that writer thought Gore could have run a better campaign - as do many Democrats.

Got an article that states Gore quit the DLC?

Has he changed his DLC-positions on welfare reform and NAFTA (he was Clinton's point man on both), faith based intitiatives, and defense?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

35. Here's the best I've found so far...

The recent American Prospect article by Ezra Klein:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?name=View+Author§ion=root&id=1325

Here is a relevant part:

Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (the DLC, which Gore was once closely identified with) and former-domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, laughed that “it’s not the politics of climate change that made him want to do a documentary on it. For 25 years he’s tried to get people interested. … This is a guy who, in the late 1980’s, went to the South Pole and brought back home movies of penguins playing on the ice surrounded by senators in parkas and wrote about it for The New Republic.”

Ezra Klein is correct in his characterization of Gore as formerly DLC, as far as I know. You raise some other good points and I honestly don't know Gore's current position on those things.

As to defense (at least as it relates to national security), I think that is one of Gore's long suits. He is not subject to Viet Nam syndrome, as so many leading Dems have been for decades. Whether he supports a war or opposes it depends on the circumstances. He voted for the first Gulf war and spoke against the second one from the beginning, in a way more cogently than any other American. For example, his seminal speech in San Francisco, September, 2002:

http://algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

The reasons I back Gore are many. He is usually right on the big issues. But the reason I have worked harder for him than any other Democrat is because he is a visionary who *leads* on important issues.

But for his work in funding and supporting DarpaNet back in Congress, you and I might not be having this discussion right now. It's possible that the Internet would have become widely popularized by 2006 even without Gore, but on the other hand I have read also that the popularization trend might not have occurred without him at all. I can't assess that, but I know he sped up the process considerably, at the very least.

But the main reason is because I feel he is the Churchill of our era, warning us of the gravest threat civilization has ever faced. If you have seen his movie (or read much on climate change), I think you can appreciate what I mean.

So for me, Gore is perhaps civilization's last best hope, if coupled with a radical change in consciousness about the relationship of civilization with the ecology.

[wyldwolf]

48. ok

Where's the part about him quitting the DLC?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

59. I don't think it's like GM,

where you sign some paperwork and they have an office party on your last day. So I don't expect there was a formal ceremony, I think it just happened, certainly no later than in 2000. Do you have any evidence that Gore remained a DLC member after 1999?

But I did do another search since you don't seem persuaded by Klein's characterization. Here's the best I could do in about 15 minutes:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/15/125046/110

It's copy-protected prior to registration, so I can't provide much text. But see:

"2. A Strong Indication that Gore parted ways with the DLC"

by NuevoLiberal on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:49 PM EST

It lists all the signatories to a major DLC statement in August, 2000 (Hyde Park Declaration). Gore is neither listed as a signatory nor mentioned (Bill Clinton spoke at the event and Lieberman signed it), even though Gore was at that time the Democratic nominee.

This inferential evidence confirms to my satisfaction that by 2000, Gore was persona non grata for the DLC. I consider my contention that Gore has parted ways with the DLC proven by this, but if you aren't satisfied I suggest doing your own search. I used (Gore former DLC). I would be interested to know your results.

Here is the entire Hyde Park statement:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926

[Admiral Loinpresser]

31. Is Peretz DLC?

I wouldn't be shocked if he were, given his aversion of Dean (with which I disagree). Even if it were true, I hardly think that equates with DLC support. I cannot fathom that Al From would support Gore until he locked up the nomination (and then only tepidly).

I just don't see any credible way to claim that Gore is supported by the DLC at this point.

[fujiyama]

62. Neither the DLC nor TNR

are "backing" Gore. Peretz is personally backing Gore and his endorsement is largely due to their long personal relationship.

Also, it's pretty clear that the major corporate types are more interested in Warner or Hillary.

You are corrent though, that it would be foolish and extremely premature to start with this "enemy of the enemy..." business.

We should realize that people back people for a myriad of different reasons. Peretz is simply giving his. While I disagree with much of his politics, I think he makes a strong argument for Gore.

[union_maid]

21. I just don't think he's going to run

At first, when he started appearing in support of An Inconvenient Truth, I thought maybe he would run. I can't believe that people don't have huge buyers' remorse now. I can't imagine that anyone who has been living on this planet for the last six years would still say there's no difference.

But I don't think he's running. I appreciate that he's not ruling it out, but I think in the end he will decide not to do it. And moreover, I don't think he likes running for office. Unfortunately, that seems to be important to being able to win. You seem to have to enjoy the fight.

[bvar22]

25. I love Al Gore's position on the Environment.

Before supporting him for President, I will need to know his positions and proposals to deal with:

1) Universal HealthCare (not an "affordable" HealthCare scam)

2) The War in Iraq

3) Media Consolidation

4) Voter Rights and Election Reform (Public Financing?)(BBV?)

5) Free Trade (the article was vague)

6) The War on Terror

7) The War on Drugs

8) The Patriot Act

9) Corporate Personhood

10) Lobbying Reform

11)Living Wage and LABOR Protections

12) Tax reform

13) Corporate re-regulation and Corporate Welfare

So far, I like what I have seen.
I just have some questions I need answered before jumping on the "Draft Gore" bandwagon.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[NYCGirl]

27. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.algore04.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=6&id=71&Itemid=84

[JNelson6563]

39. Good article

The guy obviously has a thing for the Dem party, not a good thing, but in all it's a pretty good article.

Funny how someone can be so knowledgable on some parts of the political spectrum but blinded by emotion (such as intense personal dislike) on others.

So it goes I guess. That's how it is with TNR. Nuggets of gold in with the shit.

Julie

[wyldwolf]

49. "blinded by emotion (such as intense personal dislike) "

oh, the irony!

[JNelson6563]

53. I sense a misguided assumption

I have never commented on the author of this article, I can only guess you are most misguided judging by your inferrence.

Surely you do not believe you matter enough to me to merit "intense personal dislike"??

Julie

[zulchzulu]

54. Gore has repeatedly said he is not going to run...so if he does...

...talking about being called a flip-flopper, the Ultimate Political Insult!

Whatever, Al is not going to run. I'll bet money on it.

[KoKo]

57. Do you know him personally? BTW I was for Al Gore in '88, too...

given your alliance with the DLC it's fascinating to see this post from you.

Especially when you say how close you are to him. I did shake his hand at a book signing after "Selection 2000" when he and Tipper were promoting the book of Photographs Tipper took and they wrote together. There was a long line waiting to see them outide one of our last "independent book stores" left in NC...to see him.

I have it autographed and I hope he runs but he will only do it if he knows he has enough support not to drag himself through another long campaign to be "trashed" by whore media once again.

If he does it..it will only be when his approval numbers can't be denied and he can be drafted unanimously at the Convention. He needs the support and money before the Convention, though...because the way it's done these days the delegates are already decided before Convention unless we Progressives stage a RUMPUS.

Since you haven't seemed to be a Progressive Dem...I wonder why you suddenly have a renewed interest in Gore. :shrug:

[fujiyama]

60. I read the article

and it's very interesting.

For the most part I dislike Peretz's tone and much of his neoconservative politics.

But his article does point to one of Gore's strongest selling points - he may just be the ONLY one that can reunite this party to defeat another republican. Note the enthusiasm on this board and Kos, and many other Dem. boards over a Gore run. Now he even has a prominent RW Dem endorsing a run. Granted, in Peretz's case, it is more of a personal endorsement than anything else.

Politics can sometimes make for some strange bedfellows.

[liberalpragmatist]

63. From Martin Peretz no less

Not surprising, given that Peretz is a major Gore-booster. Frankly, I cannot stand Martin Peretz, who is one of the most pompous and unlikeable characters in liberal journalism. His smearing of John Kerry in the last election was close to unforgivable - saying Kerry would have been a "dangerously bad president" and urging Jews to vote for Bush because of Kerry's Mid-East policies. Peretz's Israel obsessions are equally infuriating, for in his world, Israel can do absolutely no wrong while Arabs are childish, untrustworthy scum.

And yet out of all things, here I am genuinely liking a Martin Peretz article. Imagine that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. Martin Peretz is part of the forever-war/war on Muslims extremist fringe

but yes I do agree that Al Gore would probably be the strongest candidate.

[Geek_Girl]

67. Does this mean the DLC supports Gore?

If so I think that just proves that Gore is a candidate that the entire Democratic party can get behind. Which I think will be very important in '08.