Al Gore ( I love him) reminds me of an old boyfriend who said:

I think it's over,we have different goals and I'm moving onto other things.....I couldn't believe it! He was no longer passionate about me and what "I" wanted???? How dare he? Well I thought, maybe he'll change his mind, he'll rethink that stupid notion of doing what "HE" wants and come back, and we'll pick up where we left off. I took opportunities to sort of beg and plead and became....well, a little delusional I'll admit. I waited, and waited. He did move onto other things, and I grudgingly admit he did well, he served other people in a far grander way than he could had he come back to me and my wants..... I therefore faced the music, it really was over.

Nah, there never was that boyfriend, they all loved me and I turned them down, but do you get my point????

:spray: :D

Or is it simile -- I get those two mixed up.

One can be both with Gore and have a runner-up in case he doesn't hop in. If I were inspired
by any of the candidates -- and if I thought any one of them had a chance in hell of being
elected -- I'd already be working for him/her.

I am entitled to an opinion, and that's all it is. My opinion. Nothing sinister going on here, move on for God's sake..

I work at my computer. DU is my coffee break. I'll move on when I please.

Last I checked, you weren't the hall monitor. You post something like this, you ought to be
prepared for responses in the same spirit.

"No probative metaphor, just facing the facts...." then later "I am entitled to an opinion"

You can't state something as a "fact" and then, when challenged, back down and claim, "its only an opinion".

You are trying to make a definitive statement where there CLEARLY is not one. For some reason (unlike in 2003) Al Gore has refused to say he will not run... now you can have an opinion on why that is, but there are NO FACTS to face.

You could also throw in a little of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief:

Denial

Anger (not at Al Gore as much as at the whole rotten political system)

Bargaining

Depression

Acceptance

I should have made clear that these stages of grief would apply to Al Gore's supporters and could as well apply to the supporters of General Wesley Clark, of which I include myself :(

Clark and Gore are my favorites so this is all doubly sad for me. :( :(

First of all, Al Gore has not ruled out being a candidate again.

Whether he runs or not, you can support his work at www.algore.com

Second, Wes Clark says he thinks about it every day (NYT, July 1st).

In fact Wes is bringing out a book on September 4th:



Wes Clark also has his own website: http://securingamerica.com

PS - read this blog: www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/10/5300/93896

I simply think the current field, well, bites big ones.

I don't much like any of them.

Of course, I hate the Republican candidates, but our field is weak, too. Too weak to stand up to corporations and the monied and FOR us little people. :(

But, it made me wistful, and sort of sad.

I still hold out hope that he or someone I can really support will enter the race. Until then, I have found a perfect candidate for myself:

See who it is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3367126

TC

:cry: .......if you go along with the OP's original analogy.

TC, please see the update to my original post on this thread.

If so, I'd vote for her!

It'd be a Constitutional Crisis, but, damnit, I'd vote for her. I often think my 8 year old is smarter and more honest than anyone currently running - in both parties. :7

beltway. And I respect him immensely as a Democrat and a good person.

Hillary would not be my preferred choice, but I'm coming around to the notion that she is going to win, and not only can I live with that, it would probably be good for Al (and by extension, us), too.

He has that Clinton administration connection which he'll be able to capitalize on in order to exercise a degree of authority in helping guide changes to improve the environment, but he doesn't have to go through the stress of running (again) and all that our toxic political system entails.

So, a Hilary victory would be good in more ways than one.

throw our energy into the boyfriend's goals for awhile. Then we can stay together AND accomplish something productive.

Let's let Al do his thing. He is not a viable candidate anymore, for the simple reason that he has boxed himself in as the "Environment" candidate. Once the debate moves past that topic, he's not the best for the job. He has chosen to become a one-issue guy, and he knows that issue perfectly. But a general election requires so much more than one issue.

I agree he is not viable, but for different reasons. He has been killing the Bush administration about the war since the beginning, and he offers plenty more. I think he's not viable because he is a laughingstock to the right. They hate him as much as Hillary. It will be "Al Gore invented .." fill in the blank. They would shred him.

You should.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622015,00.html

And this is only a small excerpt!

I'm reading 1776 right now. I like history and don't read much of the current political books. I like having some distance from events before trying to encapsulate them into a workable framework that I can understand.

Our founders went through so much to create this country. So sad what it has become in part.

I didn't say Gore was necessarily a one-issue candidate. I meant that that is how he is viewed in the mainstream, and that he has identified himself so much with that one issue that most people will pigeonhole him. So I don't believe he is viable in a general election for that reason.

Also, his "we only have ten years to act" will rub folks the wrong way because the way he phrases it, he has a tendency to sound like an alarmist. Alarmists, by their very nature, tend to energize the base but turn off the general public that may not be paying attention.

the general public do not get turned off by an alarmist, if the alarmist has good reason to be alarmed. This is why they don't get mad at a fire alarm, if it wakes them up, thereby saving their lives when there is a blazing inferno. However if a prankster sets off the alarm, it's a different matter.

This is were our free press fourth estate guardian watchdogs for democracy come in, if they tell the people, go back to sleep, do not pay attention to the fire and smoke, should the people then not heed the alarmist? Should the alarmist lower his or her voice so as to not disturb their slumber?

The fault is not with the alarm or alarmist any more than it was with Paul Revere, it's with the betrayers of the people, in this case the corporate media; who have ignored, or obfuscated the best available evidence; peer reviewed scientific studies or just slandered the alarmist.

I'm not saying the alarmist is wrong or that he should be silenced. I'm only saying that in the current state of the world, most of the public views Al Gore as a one-issue kind of guy. Whether right, wrong, or indifferent -- that's how I read the public view of him. And yes, alarmists (in general) tend to be viewed with a wary eye by most people because no one wants to believe that catastrophe is imminent. Not faulting Gore; it's just the way it is. I don't think most people believe that the world is going to come crashing down on them in 10 years if we don't enact Kyoto immediately. So when he uses his "we have ten years" line, I don't think that's going to resonate with middle America.

Also, I think the MSM does pretty favorable coverage of Gore and climate change. He gets a lot of ink and face time on TV. They just had round-the-clock coverage of the Live Earth concerts. Weather Channel does specials on it all the time.

the corporate media's favorable coverage of Gore and climate change, I would suggest checking out the Daily Howler's link I have posted and google "War Against Gore" or "2000 debates". This was how they treated him when it counted, maybe you're one of these people that believe Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the Internet? They openly jeered him during one of his debates. They reversed their own reporting and their focus groups overnight as to who the won the debates. These are just a few examples of their one sided reporting on that race.

The Bush Administration has went so far as to muzzle or hinder their own scientists reporting on the effects of global warming climate change as in NASA.

http://dailyhowler.com/

The primary reasons the corporate media give him pseudo positive coverage today is because.

1. The curtain has been pulled back on the corruption and incompetence of the Bush Administration, the very person they enabled to power, the people can't help but to compare the difference in the capabilities and virtues of these two men.

2. The abandonment of and visual sight of a major American City left to drown reawakened the American People as to the power of mother nature and did much to dissolve the illusion of our disconnect from it's consequences. The change in climate itself is making it increasingly difficult for them to hide the truth as we experience record droughts through out the nation.

3. Al Gore's obvious successes since the selection of 2000, a Webbie, an Oscar for the documentary of his work in alarming the people as to the dangers of global warming climate change, not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

4. His democratization of television with Current T.V. is also on the cutting edge of changing the way we as a people view the way we should be informed from a one way dictation to two way communication, his bestselling book The Assault on Reason is a nice follow through on this.

5. As the Internet has gained in power, they're acutely aware, they can't totally be the sole gatekeepers to the truth anymore, although this hasn't stopped them from trying. He did indeed champion the Internet and was roundly trashed and slandered by the corporate media as they became aware of their own loss of power, influence and money and more people are realizing that every day.

6. It's not just global warming climate change Al Gore was correct on, he warned against the folly and immorality of a premeditated war with Iraq and how this would hurt our standing around the world and divert much needed resources in taking the battle against the people that actually attacked us. The corporate media for the most part wouldn't report on the actual content of the speech so much as to say he was just ranting.

In conclusion Al Gore has never claimed the world would come crashing down on them in ten years, he has said we have that window of opportunity to reverse or mitigate the worst effects of global warming climate change and considering the rapid growth of China and India, this is totally logical.

I agree with almost all of your points. I wasn't talking about 2000 so can't really comment on that. I didn't watch the debates much back then. Debates always strike me as scripted talking points so I tend to disregard their importance. I was talking about 2007 and it seems that Gore gets pretty favorable treatment nowadays.

Sorry if I was rude or something. I just don't think Gore is viable nowadays to the general public. I think he'll get the base energized but would fall flat in a general election. I don't think climate change is enough of an issue to get the people to vote for him, and yes I do believe that that is his one issue.

I believe the general public are waking up, including independents and moderate Republicans, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger being just two examples. I also believe climate change will take on increased significance and finally I believe Al Gore is far more than one issue as vital as climate change is.

If you love history, not to mention psychology and sociology, I highly recommend "The Assault on Reason".

P.S. I forgot to welcome you, welcome to D.U. DangerDave:hi:

Thanks for the welcome. I'm getting a pounding in another thread for some reason. LOL

He has more knowledge and experience than any of the declared candidates on just about any subject you care to name -- not least of which foreign affairs.

A "one-issue guy"? Hardly!

...but I'm not ruling out getting back together. I don't plan on us getting back together, but you know anything's possible. I'm not saying we won't get back together only that I can't say...that I've set a date.

vying for our attentions are sub-par.

I want the ones I can't have. And it's driving me mad. It's written all over my face (props to Morrissey).

Wes Clark!!

The Gore-haters are really in full force this week.