Why is Al Gore deemed the second coming on DU? He's not.

[babylonsister]

I respect him highly for his movie, his activism, and should he run, I might support him.
But after the Oscars, unless he runs, he 'goes away'. Or not. But if he doesn't run, who will the
Gore voters vote for?
And I know he's all about the environment, so need no chastisement on the subject.

[crispini]

1. He doesn't go away after the Oscars.

Mr. Gore has planned a series of huge concerts to promote awareness of global warming. He also has a book coming out in May, I think it is, which -- interestingly enough -- is NOT about the environment. :think:

If he doesn't run, the Gore voters will, I hope, vote for the candidate who really shows they "get" global warming. I for one hope he makes an endorsement if he doesn't run.

[babylonsister]

7. And do you have any idea who he might endorse, crispini? nt

[crispini]

14. Ooo. No idea.

I hope he will do some vetting of the various candidates and pick the one that seems very sincere re: global warming. His endorsement would go a long way with me! :D

[Maven]

2. He's a heavy hitter...he has substance

And integrity, especially on the war.

I'm seriously hoping he'll run; in the alternative, I'm not sure whom I'd support.

[eleny]

3. My guess is that he could overshadow Hillary

And steal everybody else's thunder. It would be a hell of a couple of months, for sure.

[babylonsister]

28. But if he doesn't run, who would you support?

You don't have to answer that! :evilgrin: I know who I wouldn't...

[lvx35]

4. Basically, Gore put the right thing over the politically greedy thing when he...

...made global warming his number 1 priority. Now that we are seeing the effects of global warming so readily, he's even more relevant. He's also appealing in that Hillary Clinton has nothing on him...Gore's WH experience is even greater than hers, something which no other candidates can claim.

[Bluebear]

5. If he wins the Oscar and the Nobel Prize he won't go away

I just have a feeling that karma has good things in the works for him.

[ruggerson]

6. I want a candidate with killer political instincts

Gore ain't that. He's a great guy, but an abysmal politician. He took what should have been a walk in 2000 and let this asshole get in power.

[babylonsister]

9. Excuse me? The Supreme Court determined the outcome of the 2000

election, and Gore got the most votes.

And BTW, McAuliffe sucks.

[ruggerson]

12. It should never have even been remotely close

We were at peace. We had a surplus. The economy was humming along.

Gore ran a ridiculously bad campaign. He stunk in the debates and came across as just plain pedantic and weird.

Sorry to disillusion you. He's not a good politician.

I agree with him on almost every issue, but he doesn't have natural political skills.

And what the fuck does Terry McAuliffe have to do with this?

[crispini]

15. Have you seen his movie?

'Cause, wow. He really DOES have natural LEADERSHIP skills. The movie was great, and he really came across like a natural. He is also that good live, with the slideshow.

I think maybe he was second-guessing himself, or listening to too many consultants, or something.

[tenshi816]

56. My husband was invited to hear Al Gore speak

a couple of days ago at Sheffield University in the UK, where Gore was being awarded an honorary doctorate. My husband is British and fairly apolitical, especially concerning American politics, but he came away from listening to Gore as an unabashed new fan. Honestly, he's not stopped talking about him since and says that if he (hubby) were American, he'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If the 2007 Al Gore can impress someone as normally uninterested as my husband, that's saying something.

I agree with you - I think Gore spent too much time listening to consultants in 2000, and not enough time trusting his own instincts. I also believe he didn't fight back hard enough against the media's attempts to portray him as less than honest (y'know, that famous left-wing media...).

[babylonsister]

16. You're right. McAuliffe has nothing to do with it, but that's in my brain for

another story.

I also thought Gore was pedantic. And weird.

I don't remember how bad Gore stunk in the debates because I know how much I abhorred *. Sigh. Smart if pedantic sounds fine.

[last_texas_dem]

23. I disagree on that

To me, it seems like saying that "it never should have been remotely close" assumes that Gore was the incumbent President and not Clinton's VP. Gore may have been the higher-status public official at the time, (VP vs. Governor) but before the campaigns really kicked into high gear he really didn't have some significant advantage as a candidate over Shrub. I recall polls several months before the campaigns really heated up in which Shrub enjoyed a 15-point lead. The good economy and the relatively peaceful world situation at the time did not immediately translate to Americans thinking, "Clinton gave us this; let's keep it this way by keeping his VP." In fact, I believe the good economy and peaceful world situation made more Americans consider to base their vote on bullshit reasons like what "wedge" social issue mattered the most to them or which candidate they'd rather have a beer with.

I think Gore's 2000 campaign was actually pretty impressive considering what he was up against. The media decided to take the role of the cool kids, constantly singing the praises of their fellow dumbass cool kid George W., and making fun of and talking shit on that nerdy brown-noser Al Gore. Gore still managed to close that 15-percentage point deficit and end up winning the popular vote and, if all the votes had been counted in Florida, the Electoral College. Obviously, we have differing views on the debates as well. Everytime I watched them, I was certain this would be where the public would finally realize what an idiot Dimson was. I thought Gore knocked them all out of the park. It would only be in the post-debate coverage that I would learn that they were "a draw" or that Bush had somehow won, in the media's estimation. I was 17 at the time, not actually old enough to vote in the '00 elections, but became addicted to the media coverage in the last couple months of those elections. The bias in favor of * was so transparently vicious, disgusting, and ridiculous, that it permanently changed my ideas concerning the media and its effect on our system of government.

I'm not coming from the same place as many DUers: many who used to strongly dislike or seemed pretty indifferent to Gore, but have come around since he came out against Iraq or became the best-know spokesman to fight global warming. It's not that I don't admire both of those positions; I just think Al Gore is the same guy he was in 2000 that he is now. He's always been very able and intelligent and generally taken positions that I agree with. The main difference is that, post-2000, he hasn't had to deal with the media spreading bullshit about him and what he stands for *on the same level that he did during the election season*. It's only natural that many have come away with a more positive impression of him. Does that mean the media will actually treat him fairly if he decides to run in '08? Well, I think he may get a slightly fairer shake; I've no doubt there are some in the media who realize just what a disservice they did the country by trying to blatantly choose our President in 2000. (At the same time there are guys like Chris Matthews who are just as loud, nasty, and misguided as ever on the subject of Al Gore.)

The bottom line is, I think that whoever the Democratic Presidential nominee is, he/she will have to deal with his/her fair share of biased coverage from the corporate media. But I think Gore will be in a much better position this time around, should he choose to run, than he was in 2000. Not because he has changed, so much as because the climate will be different. Now I'm a pessimist by nature, so I hate to presume anything too optimistic about the '08 election based on what happened three months ago, but... I think the mid-terms count for something. It took long enough but people are finally waking up to the bullshit. Not only are the Repugs not in the same position as they have been in for the last several elections, but I think people also don't trust the media in the same amount they once did. Both of those factors would be quite helpful to an Al Gore candidacy.

[AlGore-08.com]

26. Gore started out 20 points behind and ended up a half million votes ahead

If he had really run a terrible campaign, he would have remained 20 points behind and lost by a landslide.

If he had run and really, really terrible campaign, he would have lost by more than 20 points and lost by a historic landslide.

(Why was he 20 points behind? Because he began his campaign 1 month after Clinton's impeachment!)

Gore was outspent by nearly 2 to 1.

If it wasn't for the Supreme Court, Gore would be universally praised as a political genius for the most amazing come from behind Presidential win in history.

[zeemike]

41. It wasn't if the votes were counted

But those impressions of Gore that you and others had were carefully crafted by the media. They basically told us how to feel about Gore
I mean how many times did you hear the lie repeated that Gore claimed to have invented the internet? That lie was repeated on every news program for at least a year and it was a certified lie.
And no matter what came out of his mouth there was someone there to say "listen to that he sighed, Gore sighed, how unpresidentual is that?"
Or "look he is wearing earth tones to make you think he is a human being"

How easy it is to fool the public when all t hey have is the TV to talk to.

[silvermachine]

90. I used to agree...

...with much of what you are saying. I thought his campaign was fairly disastrous. He seemed stiff, uncomfortable, and yes, pedantic. I thought his distancing himself from Clinton was really baffling and counterproductive. And his support for the Elian crowd in Florida was really distressing. Weird? Mmmmm...not so much. The only people I heard refer to him as "weird" or "bizarre" were the Coulter crowd. Not equating you with them by any means, btw. But that's just my take. But I do think he's learned a lot. He seems much more comfortable, warm, and loose these days. Charismatic even. I think he would come across in a much more human and appealing way and would surprise a lot of people. I think the thought of him running again would be great. I think it would really fire up Democratic voters and would motivate the base, plus attract moderates and fence sitters as well. Just my thoughts....

[Senator]

40. No, they did not

All the Felonious Five did was stop the vote counting in Florida.

Gore failed to say "No, this is wrong." He conceded (again).

Just like Kerry failed to say "No" to hours-long poll-tax-lines in Ohio.

They both failed us. Those were not "their" elections to concede.

--

[karynnj]

47. There was nothing more that could be done

Gore lost an appeal to the supreme court. That can't be appealed. It is the highest court in the land. Other than leading a revolution, what could Gore do? The government as he knew it let him down.

On election day, Kerry lawyers went to court to keep the polls open as long as needed - that's why the last votes were cast well after midnight. This did not make up for the votes lost because many people could not sfford to stand in line for four plus hours. Estimates of votes lost due to long lines alone, using relatively conservative assumptions documented in RFKjr's Rolling Stone article, account for Kerry's loss of Ohio. However, you can't count votes never cast.

Both Gore and Kerry are men of integrity, brilliance and vision. They would have made fine Presidents. The problem is a decrepid voting system and a biased media.

[Senator]

93. I just said what "could have been done"

And Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent to the BushvGore edict what should have been done.

You can indeed "count" votes that are uncast or uncounted -- by disallowing the resulting unlawful electors. Senator Barbara Boxer stood up to do just that on January 6th, 2005.

Kerry failed (again) that day. Just like Gore (and Kerry) did 4 years earlier. Men and women of integrity would come clean about those failures, as Sen. Boxer did about her failure in 2001.

Unless and until they do, they only ask us to go forward with them in dishonesty.

We can do better.

---

[GumboYaYa]

37. Dead Spot on right. As a politician Gore is a tool....

He just doesn't carry himself well. I have been at functions with him a few times in the past couple months and he is as stiff and lifeless as ever. He just doesn't have the "X-Factor" that it takes to win a national election. We would be ill served to chose Gore over some of the far better politicians already in the race, if we actually want to win the Presidency for once.

[crispini]

88. So very subjective, your opinions.

I also have been to a function with Mr. Gore in the last few months and found him charming and personable.

[GumboYaYa]

89. Absolutely it is a very subjective opinion.

It just happens to be one that is shared by many people who meet Gore. It is his fatal flaw as a politician.

He is without question the smartest guy in the room. True to the ancient Greeks his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness.

If you want to point to one person who has been consistently right on all of the issues that face our country over the past decade, it is Al Gore. There is no doubt that he has had a major impact on the world with his focus on tough issues. In terms of policies, I agree with Gore on virtually every position he takes.

He exists in a different intellectual realm than virtually everyone. Unfortunately, and perhaps because of his great intellect, he has a difficult time relating to ordinary people. He has gotten the canned self-deprecating speech down, but he still has a hard time being at ease doing the typical politician glad handing. There is no question that he does not have the charisma of Bill Clinton, John Edwards or Barak Obama. Unfortunately, that charisma seems to be a necessary ingredient to winning the presidency.

Gore has done so much good where he is now. I hope he keeps on doing that.

[Syrinx]

8. He's not just about the environment

Obviously the environment is a very important issue for him, but I've also been impressed with his outspoken support for civil rights and liberties, during this dark period. If he gets in, I'll probably vote for him in the primaries, but he will face some serious opponents.

[Extend a Hand]

10. It's still early

and I'm really hoping that Al Gore runs. If he doesn't, I'll probably vote Kucinich.

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, babylonsister. I was a Bradley Democrat in the 08 primaries

but my guy lost and Al was the guy who whipped us.

I really thought New Hampshire would surge for Bill Bradley, similar to how it surged for Gary Hart against Walter Mondale.

Gore is held high in many Democratic circles because many Democrats feel he was cheated out of an important government job by a vacuous monkey. That's a big component.

You're right about Gore and the environment -- he's really moved a lot of people toward a heightened awareness of it.

And the public addresses he's made since 2004 especially have been barn-burners. Various web sites report that his appearances now are a very hot ticket, so it may not be just DU where he's drawing crowds.

[babylonsister]

24. I liked Bradley also, but he burned out fast.

I could vote for Gore in a heart beat right now; it's too early, but I do think there might be more valuable people around than the ones currently running. I could also be proved wrong!

[saltpoint]

82. When we Democrats take the White House in 2008, I'm

thinking Bill Bradley would be a great Cabinet member -- or Supreme Court Justice.

The SCOTUS might be too sedantary a job for him, but still... he would give Scalia and Thomas a sturdy challenge and would be a strong vote for the good side.

[illinoisprogressive]

13. I love and respect him but, I also know that in reality it's a good bet he won't run.

I move on. I will always love the guy and feel sad he did not go for it but, it's his life now. Let him do what he wants to do. It's time to move on and quit thinking of the past.
We have an 08 election.
Hillary will only get the nomination if we let her. If we don't want her we stop her.
I just posted something on Joe trippi who says the blogs drive this election.
so, lets.
Let gore be happy. If he runs great but, don't keep looking back.
besides, I'd like to know how many of the people who are pushing him did not vote for him in 2000.

[crispini]

17. I'm just concerned that if we don't unite, we won't stop Hillary.

Gore seems to have broad appeal, at least to the internet Democrats. I have no idea who we could unite behind otherwise.

[babylonsister]

18. The Hillary $$ is really scary imo. Can the presidency be bought? nt

[Bozita]

19. Have you been paying attention?

Think 2000.

[Syrinx]

20. 2000 wasn't bought. It was stolen. n/t

[babylonsister]

21. He surely has never been elected. nt

[BlueManDude]

38. All the money in the world won't put her in the White House.

She's a trainwreck for the party.

[leftstreet]

22. Saving The Planet translates into Saving America?

:shrug:

I don't know.

I keep asking what his platform is, but Gore supporters continue to remain silent.

[katsy]

27. He was against the war when it wasn't kewl to be against it.

[TheWraith]

25. Because we're all about the underdogs.

We Democrats do love our sacrificial lambs. We're all about the Gores, and the Deans, and the Feingolds. We're crazy go nuts for people whose chances of winning can be calculated on one hand. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Al Gore too. But really, we can't find anybody better, somebody who maybe hasn't already blown a mortal lock in a presidential campaign?

[EFerrari]

29. I know why. Because he was the last person we were paying attention to

before all hell broke loose.

So, in a funny way, it makes sense to go back to the last thing that worked. Not to mention, we elected him.

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

52. There's a LOT of psychological truth in what you wrote. Impressive insight

[bananas]

30. Heresy! Burn her!

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[autorank]

31. He is the most qualified candidate with a pro Constitution - pro citizen agenda.

Did you ever read about this. That's all it should take January 16, 2001, Washington DC, calling * out and Congress too. And then there's the environment thing, ya know. Come on Babylon, they should just all give up and endorse Gore because it is so obvious that Al stands head and shoulders above the others (except Webb who should run for VP).

[malaise]

32. Gore/Kucinich

the only hope right now.

[bowens43]

33. Not everyone considers him the second coming

I mean the man wasn't even smart enough to beat Bush. Gore is a loser. If Gore is the best we can do, we don't stand a chance in 08.

[last_texas_dem]

34. Well...

...for one thing, Gore technically *did* beat Shrub, unless one believes that all those elderly Jewish voters in South Florida really did want to vote for Pat Buchanan and those thousands of "undervotes" on punchcards were really just people who decided to leave the Presidential race blank.

But, even if one asserts that Gore did in fact lose because he didn't end up serving as President from 2001-05, when has the intelligence of a candidate ever had anything to do with their electability? So if Gore wasn't "smart enough" to beat Bush, should we also assume that John Kerry was just too stupid to beat Shrub as well? Or that Jimmy Carter wasn't smart enough to beat Ronald Reagan? That Adlai Stevenson wasn't smart enough to beat Dwight Eisenhower?, etc.

[earth mom]

61. Get a clue. Gore won in 2000. * Co stole the election. eom

[Kahuna]

35. He's a brilliant visionary with a good heart. THAT's what I want

in a president. You?

[Greyhound]

36. Hello? Is there anybody out there with a memory of more than 5 minutes?

I think Al Gore's effort to help the environment now are admirable to say the least, but do you recall that he was one of the major players, and in fact, cast the deciding vote in increasing and accelerating the damage we are doing to the environment with his advocacy of global corporatism? Apparently the environment comes in second when competing with corporate profits, and political ambition.

[JNelson6563]

39. There's no telling

I'm a hold-out for Gore and I have no idea who I would support should Gore choose not to run. I feel like there is absolutely no need to decide anytime soon either. So much work to do between now and then, who cares?

Julie

[Auggie]

42. Gore may have the best chance of winning on 2008

I don't see fringe voters (particularly in the south) going for Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, or Biden.

Gore has the most universal appeal.

[riverwalker]

43. and why did he pick Lieberman?

How could he have selected that slimey turd as his VP pick, with all the other possiblities? Lieberman's lack of character and integrity had to be obvious, even then. I'll never know why Gore chose him above all others, and I question his judgement in ever aligning himself with Lieberman.

[Auggie]

51. Huge mistake. As was his performance in the debates.

But he's learned. I think.

[Virginia Dare]

74. I agree, BIG BIG mistake...

that soured me on his candidacy a bit, I intensely disliked Joe even back then, but of course I voted for him like a good little Democrat.

[Junkdrawer]

44. Al Gore has consistently been right on Iraq...

He was one of the only Senators to oppose the first Gulf War in 1991 and he has spoken out strongly against precipitous military action since, even when many, if not most in his party was lining up behind Bush...

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[Junkdrawer]

53. ...on Media Reform...

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133

[Junkdrawer]

54. ..on torture and civil liberties and the balance of power in government...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html

[redqueen]

77. Why was he so gung ho about the Telecom Act, then?

He needs to address his role in that, and his comments at the time.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

69. Gore actually voted for the 1991 Persian Gulf War

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00002

I don't hold that against him though. Just setting the record straight

[Junkdrawer]

71. Thanks. My bad. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Simple.

I'll WRITE IN his name. What, do you REALLY think the "shut up and vote" shit's gonna work? THAT trend changed in 2004 or didn't you notice Kerry isn't president?

[PhilipShore]

46. If Gore does not run --- I will only vote for Kucinich or General Clark

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Did you forget about his Nobel prize nomination?

I really believe he is just waiting to run, Sister. Let these early birds eat themselves up then he can enter the race and take the lead.

[radfringe]

49. he's the candidate du'jour

you have to realize that people are desperate for a leader, for anyone that shows some spine

two weeks ago people were flocking to Jim Webb

this week it's Gore

Next week it will be someone else who stands up to the bushies

and the week after that it will be whoever flips cheney the bird

[Greeby]

50. Go away? Hardly, he's going to be schooling the members of Congress

When he testifies before a Joint Committee on March 21st

[fidgeting wildly]

55. He's not going away.

He will continue the extraordinary work that he's been doing for years. I don't undersand why people are assigning so much political importance to the Oscars. That is not the be all and end all of Al Gore.

I would support a Gore candidacy. If the time comes when Gore announces definitively that he will not run in 2008, I will make my choice from among the other candidates then. It's freaking February 2007. I don't think it's imperative right now for me, or other Gore supporters, to have a backup plan in case our guy decides not to run.

[Toucano]

57. THE MAN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT!

And he was ROBBED of his victory.

Had the fraud been stopped, the entire 21st century would be different right now.

I believe that a portion of the attraction to Al Gore is the great desire among many to set things right. Get back on the right track.

It is a second coming, full of the promise for redemption and salvation for a nation mired in the sins of it's fraudulent leadership.

[Virginia Dare]

62. Why didn't he set it straight the first time...

I realize that hindsight is always 20/20, but considering what was at stake, he should have fought for it, he should have put his principles and this country above his political handlers.

Somebody convinced him that it was best for the country to move on, that was obviously a very fatal mistake.

We couldn't put our fate into the hands of one man now, and we certainly can't put our fate into that same man's hands now.

Having said that, if he ran and became the nominee, of course I would support him.

[Toucano]

65. Under what mechanism could he have set it straight the first time?

Should he have formed a militia? Is that the strength you're looking for?

Every legal means had been exhausted. The SUPREME COURT stopped the re-count.

There exists in U.S. law, no provision or procedure for overturning a fraudulent election. The Secretary of State has X days to certify the election. When the court ordered the re-count stopped, Harris was free to procede with the certification of the fraud.

The electors at the electoral college could have stopped it, but they're political pawns, and that could never happen.

I am really curious what legal means he could have used to stop the fraud.

[Virginia Dare]

68. The Supreme Court stopped the recount...

but nobody ever called out the fraud. Has Gore himself ever called out the fraud, to this day? Has he ever pinpointed Choicepoint by name for dumping all of those voters?

You could be right, maybe nothing could have been done, but I'm sure there are some clever lawyers out there who could have come up with some sort of lawsuit.

[Toucano]

72. I don't know that he has publicly acknowledged the details of the fraud.

But he has acknowledged the INJUSTICE he suffered.

Perhaps talking about Checkpoint systems would be helpful, but perhaps that's a torch that is better carried by another. I think I would prefer if he talked about it himself.

Once congress has accepted the electoral college vote, there is no clever lawsuit that can be initiated to stop it.

What makes the purge such a perfect strategy to steal an election is the fact that it doesn't legally constitute fraud. Fraud being the legal requirement for waiver of the statutory deadlines. Under a purge, votes aren't switched. Valid ballots aren't tossed or concealed. People just don't get to vote. It becomes an "irregularity" rather than an obvious fraud (which is is). It's a brilliantly evil strategy.

All the laws that address electoral fraud deal with the methods that had been known up to that time. Dead people voting, ballots being hidden or destroyed, votes being switched.

And remember, much of the actual evidence only became clear after the deadlines for acting on it had passed. Greg Palast says he contacted Gore's people about what he knew, but I can understand their need to sort through that information before acting on it because of Palast's reputation. And even much of Palasts investigation was concluded after the fact.

There were multiple problems, as you'll recall. Gore and his team chose to challenge what would be the easist problem to address: the ballots that HAD BEEN CAST, but not counted for technical reasons (hanging or dimpled chads, etc.)

The Supreme Court stopped that strategy.

The bottomline for me is that I can't really hold it against Gore. I think he acted reasonably with the information he had within the constraints of the law.

[Virginia Dare]

73. Certainly I resent and hold in contempt those that...

perpetrated this fraud, but I guess I'm really disappointed that the Democratic Party in general didn't do more to expose it, I don't necessarily hold Gore responsible for this, but of course, it was his race that was lost, so he had the most at stake. At any rate, we'll never know what could have been.

I guess I just can't get over it, as much as the Repukies tell me to.

:cry:

[Toucano]

79. It's almost a taboo, isn't it?

I remember Kerry and Edwards both alluding to the fraud in 2004. Clark once said something like Bush was going to need brother governors in 50 states to win again.

But I can't recall anyone with high visibility addressing the purge openly. I really can't understand that. I think the American people are more than ready to accept any explanation that could get them off the hook for the trainwreck that this administration has been.

It is frustrating and I'm also not over it!

[lonestarnot]

91. Second COMING OF AL! He was already elected once!

[WI_DEM]

58. my feeling is if he really wants to make a true difference on global warming and other problems

he should run for president. Yes, his movie and lectures on the subject highlight the problem and should be applauded, but if he really wants to make a impact on policy he should run for president and then try and implement solutions and work with other nations to do the same.

If he doesn't run, who will he support? In '04 it was Howard Dean. My feeling is that he will not endorse anyone this time but make the usual blanket statement that whoever is nominated will get his wholehearted support.

[Malikshah]

59. Uh...every candidate is viewed as Jesus squared by their supporters on the board

God knows I never need to see the not so subtle attempts to deify any number of contenders

It's part of the process.

BTW-- Be careful or we Goreovians will smite the blasphemer! :)

[earth mom]

60. I support Gore because he gives a damn about our Earth

and has gone above and beyond to try and get the word out that this planet is at a very critical stage. He has integrity and ethics and that counts big time with me and I have no doubt if elected he will get this country out of Iraq and as well as not go to war with Iran! Whereas the dem candidates that are running for the presidency have sold their souls, ethics and integrity to the devil by supporting any kind of war in the middle east!

[ZacharyG]

63. I think it's because

Al Gore rightfully won the Presidency in 2000.

It would be great if he ran for the Democratic nomination IMO.

[Jennicut]

64. Gore did not blow the 2000 campaign

He WON it or didn't some of you get the six year old news flash that Bush and a partisan Supreme Court stole it? As for being a bad campaigner Gore has already said he doesn't campaign very well and there are just some things he is not good at. How many current politicians would admit any weakness about themselves? I am so uninspired by our current crop of candidates except for perhaps Obama and even then where is the substance? I will have to wait and see. I wish Gore would run if only to right the wrongs of 2000 but I feel he won't as elections in 2008 will be all about who has the most money. Please tell me how we can elect a good candidate when it takes so much money and so much selling of your soul just to win a Senate race let alone the presidency? We are doomed as a country. I don't think one person can save us but I think the lessons of 2000 have been forgotten. The fact that we are living in a Democracy is a hoax. It is a Plutocracy bought and sold by the highest bidders. Elections are stolen left and right, politicians bought by major corps to do their bidding, only the most powerful and well connected can be elected to higher office. It is happening on both ends of the political spectrum. It is the corpratists which will doom this country. So much damage and disregard for the constitution has already happened under Bush. I only hope that the very few politicians left or who were recently elected that still have some integrity can save this country.

[Caution]

66. Why is Kucinich? Edwards? Clinton, Obama? Clark? S/He is not.

The same can be said for every single other current candidate or potential candidate. People think that someone shows great leadership, represents their political views best and push them as a candidate.

Why should he "go away" ? One can be a strong advocate for change and not be a candidate (Too bad people like Ralph Nader have forgotten this).

[redqueen]

78. What a great post!

:hi:

[redqueen]

67. No idea... I don't quite trust him (due to free trade issues).

I like what he's doing lately... love it actually.

I can't forget his vociferous and enthusiastic support for NAFTA, though... that must be addressed.

[Virginia Dare]

75. And the Telecommunications Act...

that was very damaging to our Democracy.

[redqueen]

76. I trust him even less now. :(

He was supportive of that, too? Geez Louise... considering his work getting the Internet made availble to the public, or whatever it was exactly that he did... you'd think he'd know those dangers inside and out.

[Virginia Dare]

80. Maybe he's seen the light on that now too?

I don't know, I haven't really heard him speak to that issue at all lately. But, I fully agree with you NAFTA and the Telecommuncations Act are two things that came out of the Clinton/Gore Administration that gave me pain.

[NYCGirl]

81. Obviously, you've never read or heard this:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/5/14301/6133

Don't tar Gore with what Clinton pushed through.

[redqueen]

83. Gore worked for it too.

He didn't directly address his role in pushing for it.

He needs to do so if he expects to be trusted on the issue, IMO.

[Virginia Dare]

85. Gore was very influential in writing it and getting it passed...

and I'm not tarring anybody.

[NYCGirl]

86. So his recent speech doesn't reflect how he feels about it? NT

[Virginia Dare]

92. How does that change the fact that it was passed?...n/t

[roamer65]

70. We need to have a large Draft Gore rally somewhere.

Perhaps his Nashville office?

[LSK]

84. Al Gore of 2000 is not Al Gore of 2007

When you are not the Vice President or a Senator, you have time to reflect and think about things. I believe he has learned a lot from his experiences and reflection in the past 6 years. I sure as hell know I have.

Remember Gore endorsed Dean in 2003. Also Gore put up more of a fight than Kerry did in Ohio. Its not like he completely rolled over.

People need to realize that people can change over time. I know I have in the past 6 years.

[Uncle Joe]

87. The second or maybe the third, fourth etc. coming of Prometheus (Remember the Titans)

Bill Moyers had a series of excellent interviews with the late Joseph Campbell regarding his book "The Power Of Myth". In it Joseph speaks of the commonality of all the world's religions and mythologies, even when they are separated by time and distance. He goes on to state that there are many lessons and much wisdom to be learned from myth. Here in Nashville (The Athens of the South), the home of the only full scale replica of The Parthenon of the Acropolis, mythology is never too far away.

What does this have to do with Al Gore? The lesson of what happened to Al Gore has repeated it self throughout history and myth. A hero or leader comes to the aid of the people and the ones in power trash him for it.

When I think of Al Gore, I think of Prometheus. Prometheus, the son of the Titan Iapetus who took pity on the misery of mankind, huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven for their benefit. Zeus (Jupiter), enraged at this loss of power caused Prometheus to be chained to a rock on Mount Caucasus, where a vulture each day devoured his liver, which was made whole again each night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity.

Al Gore, the son of Tennessee Titan Al Gore Sr. took pity on the American People as they were fed scraps of information on the vital issues of the day. Al, while he was in congress thought that the people should have equal access to the same information as the rich and the powerful. Al Gore recognized ahead of the curve (as he usually does) that for democracy to flourish, the people should have control over the flow of information that will ultimately control their lives. Information is power, so Al decided to become the primary champion of the relatively new technology (now known as the internet) controlled by the defense dept. and some universities and to open it up for everyone.

CNN recently held a poll as to the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down. So one might expect praise for such vision, service and dedication to the people, however that would be forgetting the lessons of Prometheus.

The mass corporate media were enraged at this loss of power, how dare he! They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth so that they could regale us with great stories of runaway brides, missing pretty white women, shark attacks and various other lurid tales, etc. they could continue do this for all perpetuity. The mass corporate media wanted to create a fictitious bubble or Matrix for the American People to live in and Al Gore had endangered their project.

Why would "American Journalism" want to do this to the American People? Because if you are ignorant, you are more easily controlled, and this is all about power and money. So Al had to be punished for empowering the American People. The mass corporate media not having a taste for liver with the possible exception of pate de fois gras (goose liver), decided to slander, trash, ignore and demean him in every way possible. It still goes on to this day to some degree.

The trashing of Al started in earnest in 1998, although I believe that the witch hunt against Clinton was in truth a back door way for them to hurt Al's chances of coming to power. The War Against Gore began in 1998 with a Wolf Blitzer interview; in it Blitzer asks Al what separates him from Bill Bradley? Blitzer asking Al of and Al is talking about his record in congress. As anyone would do in a job interview, Al speaks of his achievements, primarily in helping to bring about the creation of the internet as we know it today, which in fact is the truth; nothing is said by Blitzer at the time because he knows this is the truth.

One or two days later Dick Armey begins spouting his Republican Talking Points slamming Al for his hubris, and the mass corporate media begin goose stepping in unison and take up where Dick left off. The MCM says "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" which of course is a lie, and it does not end there. "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal" another lie, although he held hearings on toxic waste in Toone, Tennessee which expanded to include Love Canal. The MCM said Al Gore was wearing earth tones, so he must be a fake, besides being stiff and boring, etc. etc.

Al Gore has led a remarkable life and sometimes it reads like fiction such as being an inspiration (along with Tommy Lee Jones; his college roommate)as the lead character for the book "Love Story" but it is the truth. The MCM even did a 180 after the 2000 debates overruling their own focus groups and changing their reporting as to who won those debates overnight, someone had apparently heard him sigh (I did not). As long as Bush did not drool on his podium, he was given a standing O. The only time terrorism was ever brought up during those debates was when Al mentioned it. With the MCM, the vital issue of the day (and keep in mind this was after Osama had declared war against us) was who would you rather have in your home for a beer? The nation has been drunk ever since.

The result of all this slander, demeaning and trashing of our best and brightest is the Pottersville, we are currently living in today. But think how much more difficult it would have been for us to get the truth out regarding the Iraq War, global warming, the Downing Street Memos, Gannon/Guckert, supporting Cindy Sheehan, Bush's corruption and incompetence etc. without the internet. Think how much more difficult it would be for you to put your opinions out for the masses or praise your favorite leader’s virtues if we did not have the internet. Even the freepers and Bush owe Al; they are just too clueless to know it. These are just some of the reasons, I will never abandon Al Gore for President.

P.S. For a historical refresher, click on link below and google “War against Gore” or 2000 debates.

http://dailyhowler.com /