Simply put--- Al Gore is a great man

[trumad]

and will make a great President.

[bryant69]

1. It'll never happen

He's a great man, I agree with that.

But even liberals are willing to make jokes that distort his record - look at the jokes about Gore inventing the internet around the Foley Record. I don't think Liberals are willing to stand up for Gore, and as long as that is the case, I can't say I want him to run. He's a good man, he doesn't deserve another two years of press sliming, while we twiddle our fingers.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[trumad]

3. Sounds like a beer bet to me...

I like Sam Adams. ;-)

[SmokingJacket]

5. I agree about him not deserving press sliming.

I wouldn't be able to take it, though I'm sure he could.

[OneBlueSky]

15. not so fast . . . Gore has re-invented himself is a very positive way . .

his work for the environment, and particularly on climate change, has opened a LOT of American eyes, and I think people will be more than willing to vote for him if he's the nominee . . . and don't forget that he WON the 2000 popular vote BEFORE he became the Al Gore of 2006 . . .

[bryant69]

18. The question though is

how lazy and stupid are our press corps? I think they could lower themselves to the occasion - trot out those old scripts about phoney lying Al Gore.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rosesaylavee]

26. I think there is a great

groundswell of support for Gore this year. He has had some great press and it is painfully apparent to all that read the press and see the interviews that here is a man who can talk and walk and make sense unlike the man who stole the election in 2000.

I would bet you a beer also. Maybe a case.

[RestoreGore]

30. he didn't "reinvent" himself

He has always cared about the environment. And he didn't do it to get votes. How shallow do you think he is?

[Toots]

31. I think I have to disagree

I don't think finding humor in certain situations degrades or takes away any credibility from that person. In fact if anything it is a joke on those that first instigated the lies. I make jokes all the time about Gore's internets and I love the man. Maybe I haven't heard any jokes created by Liberals about Gore's record that would be detrimental to him. :shrug: I think if Gore ever would actually say yes I will run, the excitement felt in the Democratic Party would be quite contagious..

[cally]

2. I agree..Gore will be President if he decides to run

I've supported Gore since his first Presidential run. I think he's a great, honest man who will be a great President.

[hippiechick]

4. Oh my, Trumad - - we AGREE on something !!

:wow: :thumbsup:

[trumad]

6. We probably agree on a lot....

we just have different ways to express ourselves.....
;-)

[ThomWV]

7. I Will Drop Everything To Support Him

And will work full time toward his election as President ... again.

[RestoreGore]

8. He's Too Good A Man For The Presidency

Why is his being a good man always tied into being President? Truly good men don't become President in this country. If you don't play the game, you're out. If he never runs in this shitty system again he will still and always be a great man, so I agree on that. But I don't know why anyone would even wish that on him now considering all of the good he is now doing in the world as a free man. Or is that work not good enough or important to some because it isn't "political?"

[rosesaylavee]

27. If he had the presidency,

he would have more ability to promote his environmental concerns. He'd have the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. I think he very much wants it as do many here and elsewhere.

Not sure I understand why or how you think he could do more outside political office?

[RestoreGore]

28. Are you kidding?

If you could do more inside political office it would have been done by now. He only got ONE senator to go with Kyoto and that was Paul Wellstone. He can get more done out here on this issue now because he has the business clout he needs to influence the leaders of other businesses as far as sustainable investment. He has the TV station to raise awareness and get people involved in the Democratic process. He can now also travel the world unconstrained whenever and whereever he wants or is needed devoting his life to the one issue that has been his heart since before he got involved in politics. And we are already seeing results. In other words, he can be that environmental ambassador we need right now to bring awareness, inspiration, counsel, action, and hope to people throughout this world regarding a crisis that effects our very existence as a species. Personally, I think that's pretty damned important.

In politics this issue would ony get pushed back again and that is a foregone conclusion. You tell me as President with this "war on terror" and all the other BS going down now that he could devote as much time on this as he is now. He doesn't deserve to have to do that and give up all he has built up and waited years to do while not being under anyone's thumb and having to deal with the expectations. Over twenty five years of his life he spent in "politics" trying to get something done on this and was ignored. And yet people think he can do more back in that cesspool? He has already done more OUT HERE in the last six months than he could EVER have accomplished in that screwed up Congress, and that includes Democrats there who to this day I don't see talking much about this crisis. Unfortunately however, no one seems to be following that work of his, or they wouldn't keep asking me why I think he can do more out here. That just proves the point that this is only political to so many, and that really in a way is sad.

Martin Luther King Jr. also got more done out here for social causes and civil rights as well, and he never ran for President and was still a great man who will always be remembered for the man he was and how his actions changed history. Al Gore is also such a man, and frankly, going back to the BS of Washington DC now will only once again in my mind diminish the true importance of an issue that has been ignored by "politics" for way too long. And if he wanted it, it was there for the taking in 2004 when we really needed this to be discussed. But you see how much time was spent in politics talking about it then, right? You see how many were calling for him then because the climate crisis was so important to them then.

Again, are people "in politics" truly concerned about the issue of the climate crisis now, or only using it as a sound bite to get him to run as a diversion just because they want someone to come up against Hillary Clinton to give them the "grudge match" they need to give them something to talk about? I'm not into that kind of politics, and I don't think he is either. And from what I see, it ain't about to change drastically enough in the next year where conditions in this toxic system would be good enough for a man of his caliber to even have a fighting chance, especially in regards to spending time on this issue. I believe he has found a higher calling and I stand with him on it, and think it is now OUR turn to do something. I sure wish others would as well now, because we don't have much time to turn this around.

[RestoreGore]

34. I agree with Gene Lyons

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/160260/

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Indeed.

[Control-Z]

10. I need some help defending AL

A friend claims he lied about something re: his mother in 2000. She said it was a gratuitous lie and made a big deal about it. I don't recall any details but I couldn't argue with her - I didn't know anything about it.

[trumad]

11. If you need to debunk any bullshit about Gore, go to Somerby.

We think William Kristol is one of Washington's two or three most valuable pundits. He's smart, and willing to speak outside his party's prevailing soundbites. That is why it's so bizarre to see him dragged into the Gore doggy mess. The Washington press corps is all riled up about the cost of pills for dogs. We expect no better from typical scribes. But from Kristol, we do expect better.

Readers, let's go to the data. Gore's mother-in-law does take the drug. Gore's dog does take the drug. By all accounts, the company does charge more for the human version. And the two prices Gore cited on August 28 were accurate wholesale prices, taken from a congressional report. Here's how Kevin Sack of the New York Times quoted Gore the next day:

SACK (8/29): Mr. Gore, speaking of the drug Lodine, and its prices, said, "While it costs $108 a month for a person, it costs $37.80 for a dog."

That quote is perfectly accurate. It doesn't mention mom-in-law or Gore's dog. It's trivial, and not worth talking, but the statement by Gore is accurate. Sack was discerning enough on August 29 to put it at the end of his piece.

But somehow, William Kristol is in a fit about Gore's trivial comment. In a stunningly intemperate op-ed in the Post—why does a newspaper publish such nonsense?—Kristol says that Gore is "ruthless," "shameless," and yes, "conscienceless" because of what he said. Understand this now: Al Gore lacks a conscience because he mentioned his mother-in-law's arthritis medicine to a roomful of seniors! Kristol even accuses Gore of "dissembling," although Kristol—apparently short on conscience himself—is willing to make such an accusation without really specifying what the crime was:

KRISTOL: On Tuesday Gore acknowledged that the numbers he had used were wholesale drug prices cited in a congressional report, not the real prices paid for the medicines used by and . Asked whether he had consulted with before using her in a campaign speech, Gore replied, "The issue is not her; the issue is what seniors around the country are paying."

Can you ID the "dissembling" there? In a sane world, using wholesale prices to illustrate an overall point would not be called "conscienceless" "dissembling."

Gore's mother-in-law does use the drug. The drug does "cost $108 a month for a person," according to the congressional report. The Boston Globe, in the story which started this addled frenzy, did say, "Gore's overall message was accurate—that many brand-name drugs that have both human and animal applications are much more expensive for people than for pets." It's a matter of pathology when pundits decide that these facts define "conscienceless" living.

Readers, misdirection is a powerful force. David Copperfield can make you think the Statute of Liberty is no longer there (it is). Guys on street corners can make you swear that the pea is under the cup on the right (it isn't). And spinners and sophists can get you to focus on utter, wholesale trivia. (Socrates predicted they would do this.) The RNC started pushing the theme behind this drivel back in March 1999; it was based on three building-block examples that were all completely bogus. But the press corps (Who lacks a conscience again?) has toyed with these tales for almost two years. William Kristol's Weekly Standard (Who likes to dissemble?) engaged in one of the great deceptions of the current campaign, selectively quoting a New Yorker piece to make it look like Gore was lying. (He wasn't. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/29/99. Other links below). And now the Irati are saying, "LOOK OVER HERE," telling you (to quote Kristol again): "But is not the issueThe issue is Gore's apparently conscienceless exploitation of his own family."

When you tell a group of seniors that your mother-in-law take a certain drug, that is not "conscienceless exploitation" of your family. No sane person would think so. And so when Kristol swears that it really is, that is an act of pathology on his part. The issue is what seniors are paying, unless you—like so many pundits—simply don't care about seniors in Florida. Future generation will look back in amazement at the disturbance that drove this clownlike press decade. But when we actually reach the crazy point now defined by the doggy-pill hubbub, the crackpot nature of the Clinton Scandal Decade has made itself—alas!—Kristol clear.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092200_1.shtml

[Control-Z]

22. Great info

Thanks you - and to all who have replied.

[Tennessee Gal]

13. Try these. They include many links.

The Media's Violation of Public Trust

http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/06/14_southern.html

Regarding Al Gore

http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/08/16_southern.html

[Control-Z]

23. Thanks

I'm bookmarking everything. I love to have my ammo.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. It might be the "Doggy Pills" in the earlier post, or "The Union Lullabye"

From the Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092403.shtml

On Monday, Media Whores linked to a DAILY HOWLER from October 2000; it concerned Candidate Gore’s fateful joke about the “union lullaby.” It was perfectly clear at the time that Gore had told a joke to his union audience. But Walter Shapiro got his shorts in a wad, and soon the press made it Gore’s Latest Lie. They hooked it up to Walter Robinson’s groaner about the cost of doggy-pills, and soon the election turned around once again. More on that point at the end.

Everyone pretended that Gore’s statement was serious. But just how plainly had Gore been joking? We didn’t have Nexis in October 2000, so we couldn’t perform the full research. Of course, every Washington journalist did—and the press corps chose to lie in your face about what Gore had said.

Quick review: On September 18, 2000, Gore told the Teamsters convention that he had been sung “Look for the Union Label” as a lullaby in his youth. Brilliant historians like Shapiro discerned that the song wasn’t written until 1976; they loudly complained that the troubling comment was surely Al Gore’s Latest Lie. Gore explained that he’d only been joking. (“That was a joke,” he told a press conference. “You know? Nobody sings a lullaby to a little baby about union labels?”) He also said that he often told the joke to union audiences. Indeed, on the tape of the Gore speech, you could see Teamsters laugh at his comment. But the press was determined to make Gore a liar, and so they feigned a deep concern about his latest troubling comment (just as they do now with Clark). Indeed, the New York Times never even reported Gore’s explanation; incredibly, they never even told their readers that Gore had said he’d been joking. See Richard Berke’s astonishing voice-mail in which he defended his utter fakery. (Question: As citizens, why do we tolerate “journalists” like Berke, even for the shortest New York minute?)

But just how plainly had Gore been joking? Earlier this year, we entered “Gore AND union label” in the Nexis archives. And guess what? Just six weeks before this fake, ginned-up flap, Joel Siegel of the New York Daily News had interviewed Evy Dubrow of Greenwich Village, who thought that “her thirteenth time as a Democratic National Convention delegate may be the best of all.” Dubrow—88 years old, and a former union lobbyist—had known Gore since his childhood. Indeed, when she worked in Washington in the 1950s, Dubrow occasionally baby-sat Gore. “Al jokes that when he was a little boy, I used to sing him the ‘Union Label’ song,” Dubrow said, right there in the Daily News. And let’s make sure we understand that time-line: Dubrow said this to the Daily News on August 14, 2000—six weeks before the “union lullaby” flap. But so what? Six weeks later, your deeply destructive Washington press corps did the thing they always did best. They took Gore’s meaningless joke to the teamsters and turned it into Gore’s Latest Lie. For the record, Gore had begun to pull away in the polls at the time of the flap. The press corps’ newest GORE LIAR flap began to pull Bush back to even. (See Fineman’s comment below.)

Every scribe had access to Nexis. A search would have turned up Dubrow’s comment within minutes. But all of them knew to suppress what Dubrow had said—and Siegel kept his mouth shut, too. Your Washington press corps is worse than inept—your Washington press corps is deeply corrupt. It’s a cancer growing on our democracy. The obvious question comes to mind: How do we plan to destroy it?

WHY IT HAPPENED: You’re going to think that we’re making this up. But on Thursday, September 21, 2000, Howard Fineman explained why the press had turned on Gore in the lullaby/doggy-pill lunacy.

On that evening, Fineman appeared with Brian Williams on The News. Gore was still ahead in that day’s tracking polls, but it was clear that his fortunes had turned. Gore had experienced “his worst week in a month and a half,” Claire Shipman reported that night on the NBC Nightly News. She reviewed the doggy-pill/lullaby flaps, then played tape of biographer/pseudo-psychiatrist Bill Turque talking about Gore’s “tendency to take a pretty good story and try to make it a little better by embellishing.” “Gore aides admit it’s been a choppy week,” Shipman said as she closed her report.

Fineman offered the same assessment. “Bush has really had probably the best week he’s had since his convention speech,” he told Williams, “and Gore has had his worst.” It was too early to “write obituaries” for Bush, Fineman warned—and he reminded Williams that “the media pendulum swings.” Williams, asking a very good question for once in his life, wanted to know why that was.

Why had “the media pendulum” swung? Why was the press corps again trashing Gore? In response to Williams’ questions, Fineman made one of the most remarkable statements of the 2000 campaign:

FINEMAN (9/21/00): I don’t think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks, the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign, to be all about Al Gore’s relentless, triumphant march to the presidency. We want a race, I suppose. If we have a bias of any kind, it’s that we like to see a contest and we like to see it down to the end if we can.

Fineman made an astonishing statement. According to Fineman, the coverage had changed in the previous four days because the press corps didn’t want Gore to run away with the race, as it seemed that he might be doing. According to Fineman, the Washington press corps was tearing Gore down because they wanted an exciting, close race.

According to Fineman, that’s what this “lullaby” flap was about. And that’s why all the fake, phony pundits suppressed what they found under “Gore AND union label” when they checked it out on Nexis. Readers, do you see why we speak of the press as we do? And do you see why we, as American citizens, have to take aggressive action against these rank thieves of our birthrights?

Keep in mind that, except for one, all of the things that the press called "lies" by Gore were either true statements by Gore relabeled lies, or misquotes and/or totally bogus stories created by the press. (The one "Gore lie" that could sorta-kinda-not-really be called a lie was during one of the debates Gore said he had gone to the Texas Wildfires with James Lee Witt . Gore had actually gone there with Witt's deputy - - but had been to hundreds of other disaster areas with Witt. Most people would class that as "mispeaking" rather than "lying".)

[Control-Z]

24. I was going through

a break up during this period and missed so many of the fine details. Thanks.

[RestoreGore]

29. And this is why he will never run

Because THIS is what it would be about. Keep digging up the past and giving those who wish to do so credence by responding to it instead of looking to the future and actually helping him to take action on the climate crisis now. Again, toxic politics.

[Straight Shooter]

12. I personally had only mild supportive feelings for Gore back in 2000.

It wasn't because I didn't like him; I thought he was a fine person. (Certainly a much better person than bush, as I had come to learn from living in Texas that bush is a cold-hearted bastard.)

My respect and admiration for Gore, in 2000, didn't rise to the passionate level where it is now, though.

If he chooses to run in 2008 or 2012 or whenever, I'll be there for him, campaigning and donating like the fate of the Universe depended on it, not just the fate of the world or even the fate of America.

[nam78_two]

14. I love Al!

:loveya: Al!

[Harper_is_Bush]

17. He's not running. n/t

[Sensitivity]

19. He Would. But does he feel it his destiny at this point. Politics is

such a pain these days.

[etherealtruth]

20. Al Gore

:loveya:Al Gore:loveya: would get my vote ... for anything!

[Libby2]

21. Yes he is

and yes he would.
I've said it a million times.
Asshole is not fit to shine Gore's shoes.

[lildreamer316]

25. Truer words were never spoken.

They bear repeating....often!

[leesa]

32. I agree. If he and Feingold teamed up, I think we might even survive as a

country and regain our reputation. I don't see that happening with any of the other people put forward.

[lonestarnot]

33. Yes he is and yes he would.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

35. My first choice.

And maybe Obama as a running mate.

I think Gore might be the only candidate who could defeat McCain, unless that bloated senile old goat sucks himself up bush's rear end and disappears before 2008.