Dynamite! Kudos also due to the IPCC.
I wish he'd run, but agree that he probably won't.
He'd make a pretty good head of the Dept of Energy, though.
YES! Very well deserved.
I don't think he's going to run, either (after much hoping otherwise). Dammit.
A good man. Doing good work. He deserves this, and he certainly deserves to be CONSIDERED as a potential "turn to" candidate.
I'm just not sure how much he's changed, personally, from the candidate who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and pretty much rolled over for the repubs, and couldn't carry his home state.
I thought, and still think, that if he'd gone after them for the Clinton witchhunt, enough voters would have rallied to that, that the GOP would never have been close enough to him, to steal the election.
During his run, he had so little to say by way of outrage about the republican poon-posse that savaged Bill Clinton for years, that I wonder if he has acquired any more fire in his belly.
His comments about Iraq and bush have not been yowls of righteous anger at what bush and his people have visited on Iraq, us, and the world, but have been fairly moderate; at least the ones that I've read.
Also, there is the simple fact that Iraq is SOOO fucked up, and the results of bush's insanity are so likely to be even more chaotic and violent than we've already seen, that he might just be thinking:
"Do I want me some of THIS?
Naaaah...."
I voted for him, of course, and I understand, and sympathize with, the feelings of many people to want to try to square the wrong that was done him, by giving him another chance, but I'm just not sure that he's got what it takes, and, as Jesse says, some of what "it takes"; i.e., the gutlust for the office, doesn't speak very well of the people who DO have it.
Let's wait and see.
If Edwards and Obama keep handling Clinton with velvet gloves (and that may be changing, as we speak) and if they won't even attempt to define themselves VERY differently from a candidate who doesn't think the war is a mistake, and whose "tepid incrementalism", to steal a phrase from an FDL poster, only leads her to inch toward the kind of outraged denunciation of bush and his war that we so badly need, then, my 2c, I'm willing to take a good look at anyone. :o)
I think that a lot of movers and shakers in the beltway part of democratic party are almost as scared shitless that Iraq will totally implode before the election, as are the republicans. If that happens, it will mean several things, but it will definitely mean this:
It will be the end of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
She knows this, and so does the MSM. That's why she, and her supporters, are so frantic to win the nomination by acclimation, with the primaries serving as nothing but a rubber stamp.
They want absolutely NOTHING to do with a drawn out nomination fight, where, as the shit is unspinnably hitting the fan in Iraq, she has to defend her popping in and out of bed with george bush like she was some $5 hooker.
And that is precisely what we NEED....A good, democratic free-for-all, in which nothing is sacred except, as Emerson put it, the integrity of our own minds, will be a tonic. For us and the country.
This war has been a rig-job from the start. If the democrats buy into the unity bullshit, and are politically suidical enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, we will deserve anything that happens to us.
Right now, Edwards and Obama should be talking about the situation with the Turks, where they are on the verge of moving, however temporarily, into the Kurdish north. Once the Turks set that precedent, it will loom large for bush, for every week he has left in office. And, of course, for the next president, since it appears that the democrats are going to be cowardly enough, and stupid enough, to catch the flaming turd-bouquet that bush and the GOP so desperately want to toss them, two Novembers from now.
Woops...almost forgot to mention two words about Al Gore:
Joe Lieberman.
Give it up.
Al Gore is not running for President.
If he were, don't you think he would have at least started the process by now?
Congratulations to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for winning this year's Nobel Peace Prize!
I'm ambivalent about Gore. Kudos for his Nobel Peace Prize and his environmental work............. but then there's his awful 2000 campaign and bringing Lieberman into the limelight. I think he can do more away from politics and the Beltway Village.
Bollox, I hear you.
But I gotta say - who has more influence over US energy policy and how federal research dollars are funded RIGHT NOW?
a. George Bush
b. Dick Cheney
c. Al Gore
The reason for that is the job title.
If we actually do need a Manhattan-Project type of effort to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and integrate them into the US and world economy, it's going to take a lot of money.
And the private sector isn't going to be able to help much. Sure the oil companies have had records profits, but those are starting to slip now that $80/bbl has become normalized., And quite frankly, I'd rather not rely on them.
Other capital out there has diminished - witness the losses that most major banks and investment houses around the world have taken due to the US housing market's woes. And bear in mind that the ARM meltdown has barely begun.
If it's not the Fed doing it, it's not going to happen.
And if Al Gore isn't steering the Fed, it's not very likely to happen.
Sigh.
Beautifully put Tanbark,
And yes putting the Weasel Lieberman on the national stage is not something Gore can live down. Unfortunately I see Hillary as coming out of the same mold as candidate Gore of 2000 & candidate Kerry. I expect she'll be a lot tougher than they were on the stump (that'd be inspiring actually), but tactically I'm not seeing a great difference.
Especially if as nominee she reverts to form & plays preee-vent deee-fense all the way to November. To even win that way would be a loss for the forces of change.
I'd really like to see him run. In large part as a result of his past failings. This time he knows that being reasonable won't work and that half measures won't do. He's got the experience he's got the standing and when they bring up the usual attacks he can point at Bush and say "I told you so". As for not denouncing W strongly enough, go back and read his speeches over the past 7 years.
Not perfect by any stretch, but if you're looking for a perfect democratic candidate who can actually win and govern you'd better convert that lantern to something with a carbon neutral footprint.
If he really won't run, then I'll vote Edwards in the primary, but I still hope he does.
Boy, the wingnuts' heads are going to explode over this!
I doubt Al's gonna run. Who needs it? He sure doesn't need the trouble and he's really enjoying his role as an environmental spokesman.
Dammit silverkris, ya beat me to it! The benefit of increased attention to the problem of global warming may be offset by the mass release of methane from exploding wingnut heads.
Anyway, well done, Al.
I didn't know y'all were here! I just noticed my NewsBlog bookmark and wanted to look at Steve's picture.
Every damn day, several times a day, something happens that makes me think:
Steve would have something interesting to say about THAT.
And then I remember.
(I'll have to get caught up on all your posts. Very cool.)
PS -- Congrats to Al and the IPCC! Plus, you know, the tighty whities will really get their panties in a twist over this! Tee hee!
.
I find it strange that Professor Lonnie G. Thompson, of Ohio State University, School of Earth Sciences & Byrd Polar Research Center didn't receive 1/4 Nobel Prize with Mr. Gore. According to the Nobel Website 1/2 the Nobel Peace Prize went to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and it was split with Mr. Al Gore. I think it would be only right that Mr. Gore should split 1/2 his prize with Professor Thompson.
If one didn
’t fall asleep in Mr. Gore’s movie, one would know Mr. Gore received a majority of the Scientific Date and Information for his movie from Professor Lonnie G. Thompson, a man who has spent more time above 18,000 feet than any other person on Earth, according to Rolling Stone Magazine. Can someone tell me why the Nobel Foundation didn’t recognize Glaciologist Professor Lonnie G. Thompson and why he didn't receive 1/4 award, if Mr. Gore presented his Scientific Date / Information in his film?
Bravo, Vice President Gore and the IPCC!
I had the pleasure of spending 2-1/2 days with Mr. Gore in Nashville this past July as A Climate Project trainee. He is a passionate, wonky and funny person who needs to keep doing what he is doing. Let someone else but his/her finger in the dike to stop the hemorrhaging of all that is/was good about the U.S.
Brian - I give "the talk" regularly as a Climate Change Messenger, and agree that Dr. Thompson is an outstanding scientist (I am a Ph.D in Marine Science myself). However, the data in Gore's slides come from many sources, and it is due to Gore's vision that non-Earth scientists even know these data exist.
Let Al have this day. As far as I know, Lonnie Thompson willingly shared his research results. Perhaps that's enough for him.
Vote at CNN.COM where they ask "Are Al Gore and the climate-change panel deserving winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?" (Currently 58% say 'yes'.)
CNN's front page story from readers suggests that the praise is undeserved:
"Many readers offered congratulations to the former vice president, while others expressed disdain for him. Some readers said it was a poor choice, while others flat out dismissed global warming as pseudoscience."
This is followed by 3 nasty reader quotes, before the 4th reader quote appropriately praises the Nobel Committee's choice of Gore.
McCain proudly says that he thinks the Burma monks should have got the award, and he hopes that Gore will now embrace nuclear power.
MurfMom, you're right; it IS Al's day.
Good on him. :o)
And SilverKris, you're right too; I think I hear wingnut carotid arteries bursting, as we type. :o)
Reading wingnut comments about Gore........... yikes!!! Still, nothing compared to the comments if/when Hillary gets elected. I predict complete wingnut meltdown.
In a situation like this, we ought to draft his ass and drag him into the White House kicking and screaming. LOL.
Not going to happen, of course. We'll continue on our determined march over the precipice like the lemmings we are, by electing whatever Psychopath of the Hour manages to lie and cheat efficiently enough, and has buddies who own enough of the press.
But it's still a nice thought.
If I had just received the highest honor in the world that can be bestowed on people who promote peace, would I even consider dulling its gleam even a little by descending once again into the fetid swamp of U.S. politics?
Leave Al Gore alone. America and the rest of the world need him much more outside the White House than inside it.
desertwind -
Nice to see an old friend.
Welcome back to the News Blog community. *smiles*
oops - in my lecture rebutting Brian above, I mis-typed when I went to Nashville to learn from Al Gore.
It was April, not July.
Hey ho Desert Wind - I remember you from Steve's place. Glad you found the GNB.
Bollox:
Still, nothing compared to the comments if/when Hillary gets elected. I predict complete wingnut meltdown.
Oh, yeah. The amount of sheer, mindless rage that Hillary inspires is really breathtaking. The combination of disaster in Mesopotamia and a Hillary Presidency is going to bring the black-helicopter crowd out in droves. Eric Rudolphs on every cul-de-sac in the country, practically.
But I still can't quite see her getting the nomination. Gore would be ideal, but I can't imagine he wants to put up with the crap of an American election marathon. And the Republican field is a clown show.
This is going to be one interesting (read: terrifying) election season.
I'm glad for Gore; I have his "Inconvenient Truth."
I'm not glad for his weak-assed 2000 campaign, for bringing in Lieberpuss to national prominence in the wake of Har-Monica, for refusing to utilize Bill Clinton, and for fatally misunderstanding what the Florida case actually meant, particularly with the suppressing of the black vote.
And on that last note, I have to say that Gore, like Kerry, has issues with black folks, and I am not the only observer, critic or citizen, to say this. Fuck Donna Brazile. I've never been comfortable with his discomfort. He is a Southerner. He was a founding member of the DLC, which sought to out-Reagan the Repubs (and gave us the problems we still face now) and to palliate blacks only so far in order to win back the white male vote. He did not stand up for us, even for those who overcame their misgivings, and still voted for him. It was this chink in the armor, a technicality that he persuaded his attorneys not to pursue or to overlook, and not just a Repub-led Supreme Court, that decided Florida. People forget the legal details...
I don't want him to run. I don't want him to be president. If Gore can continue as an elder and much-revered statesperson on the environment of our Big Blue Marble; as a man whose words will stick in the craw of any president, present or future, and will be listened to by the populace, then so be it with my blessing. He can join Jimmy Carter, who is now considered to be the most decent ex-president ever in his mid-80s. Other than that, Gore's time has passed. Let him be. Let him do what good that can be done.
...a Hillary Presidency is going to bring the black-helicopter crowd out in droves.
stickler,
Agreed! She's a Dem, a woman and a CLINTON. Three strikes. The vitriol from Day One will be something to behold.
Bollox:
You got that right. The question is, is the squealing vitriol from the wingnuts greater than the value of Hillary! as President? I just can't see it, for all the schadenfreudliche joy I'd take from the wingnut chorus. Does anyone think she'd govern as a real progressive? Maybe. But I have my doubts.
And I must say, I second blksista's reluctance about Gore, just on principle. Couldn't we -- just this once -- not elect a white Southern man as President? Please? The f*cking Confederacy lost the f*cking Civil War in 1865. Let's try for a 50-year moratorium on white, Southern Presidents. Seems a modest enough proposal.
Huh. I think I just contradicted myself in the same thread.
Gore as ideal but unlikely candidate = good.
Another President from Old Dixie = bad.
I'm going to have a conversation with my homebrewed witbier and see if I can clear up this misunderstanding.
Blksista: Damn good stuff.
My sentiments, to a T.
Short-term, my thought on Al's big contribution, would be to speak the words that he thinks Hillary is the woman of Karl Rove's political (wet) dreams, and then to endorse either Edwards or Obama. Although I prefer Edwards, because he at least is talking about going after the corporate shits that are in control now, I would gladly support Obama.
Bottom line; if we nominate either one of them, we instantly reduce the GOP pick to the status of a sacrificial goat. I don't want the republicans to be within a mile of stealing this election, and if we're stupid enough to pick Hillary, it will be another cliff-hanger, IF we're lucky.
The repubs are in disarray, with shitty, vulnerable, candidates. If we pick Hillary, it will energize and unify them for the anti-Clinton crusade, like an amphetamine/viagra cocktail.
We simply can't afford to run her.
"I'd really like to see him run. In large part as a result of his past failings. This time he knows that being reasonable won't work and that half measures won't do."
It's pretty to think so, isn't it? I sometimes find myself wondering if Gore might not have grown a spine over the past 7 years, and whether he really would campaign for real if he were to throw his hat into the Presidential ring once more...
Then I remember his actual performance as Vice President and - even worse - his idea of "campaigning" in 2000, and think, "You can take the politician out of the DLC, but can you take the DLC out of the politician?" I honestly think there's too great a chance he'd revert to type, and be every bit as useless in a future election as he was back when we needed him to stand up for himself. I don't think we can afford to take that chance.
John D. - don't forget Gore said Bush was batshit crazy on Iraq when most Dems were curled up in the corner in the fetal position
stickler: "Couldn't we -- just this once -- not elect a white Southern man as President? Please?"
Edwards (from North Carolina) would make a good president.
"You can take the politician out of the DLC, but you can't take the DLC out of the politician."
a GREAT line, John D. :o)
Gay Vet; I also thought Jimmy Carter was a good president. He just got screwed with the Reagan-Bush assholes bribing the Iranians to keep the embassy-cum-CIA employees, prisoners, so that Reagan would get a push from that.
He was also, IMHO, the only american president we'll hear in our lifetime who will have the nads to call the oil companies profits "Obscene". I can remember when gas was .25 cents a gallon. Reagan and the GOP took care of THAT, nicely.
Whenever there is ANYTHING that is working out, and is a reasonably good economic deal for americans, the repubs just do NOT want us to have any stress-free time and a little extra money, with which to enjoy our turn around the track, so they go right after it, whether it's low priced gas, phone access, non-extortive medical care...just anything that we can live with, literally.
They are compulsive about keeping us "cottage people" jacked to the wall, for food, shelter, medical care, transportation, and the small goodies like cable TV, or now, cell-phone use,
etc.
I think John Edwards is the candidate most willing to change that.
Commenting by HaloScan
