The New New Gore: Reborn to Run? (April-American Prospect)

The New New Gore
From our April issue (full content):
Five years ago, Al Gore was the much-mocked pol who blew a gimme with his stiff demeanor and know-it-all style.

Today? C’mon, admit it: You like him again.

By Ezra Klein
Web Exclusive: 03.21.06



.......

Taken together, these moves, and Gore’s coming film on the global warming crisis -- “An Inconvenient Truth,” to be released in May -- point to a new narrative: Gore as warrior against the gatekeepers of the press. As it has turned out, Al Gore as presented by Al Gore is infinitely more electric and attractive than the anodyne stiff the media popularized and the voters remembered.

Since his loss, Gore has undergone a resurrection of sorts, shrugging off the consultants and the caution that hampered him during the campaign and -- aided by new distribution technologies -- evolving into perhaps the most articulate, animated, and forceful critic of the Bush administration. And now, with Democrats taking a fresh look at a man they thought they knew and speculation mounting around his ambitions in 2008, it seems that the man much mocked for inventing the Internet is in fact using the direct communication it enables to reinvent himself.

much, much more at:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11336

thank you for the link

but most likely we're all gonna be dead by 20008. ;)

thus "reborn to run":D

:loveya: GORE! :loveya:

edit: spelling

Gore as president, having to fix what the election thieves screwed up.

A classic by another poster here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2113039&mesg_id=2113427

I truly believe he and Russ will team up to save this country. I'm a late comer to the Russ Feingold camp and as is always said, better late than never.

I hope he will run.

The greatest man who has ever lived.

:loveya: Al Gore :loveya:

Is he against the death penalty?

It won't work.. need to have a strong movement against it first.

Gore Praises Seattle's Efforts In Combating Global Warming

"I'm here to applaud and publicly recognize an act of extraordinary leadership by this city," said Gore, who was vice president when the Kyoto agreement was reached in 1997. Gore spoke as Nickels officially unveiled a proposed plan to get the city to meet the treaty's goal of cutting climate-changing gases such as carbon dioxide to 7 percent below 1990 levels. The former vice president and presidential candidate, who has been an architect of international efforts to fight global warming, cautioned that Seattle's efforts are far short of what's ultimately needed. But he predicted these first steps could galvanize people and industries to make further progress by changing how they live and work.

He likened it to the effect Rosa Parks had on the civil-rights movement in 1955, when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white man. Nickels praised the work of an 18-person commission he named to come up with the proposal. He hasn't committed to the recommendations yet, but he reiterated his commitment to the Kyoto goals. "Seattle has an opportunity to make a huge difference for this country and indeed for the world," Nickels said. The commission plan aims at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions in the city in an amount equivalent to taking more than 148,000 cars off the road.

http://progressivesforgore.blogspot.com/2006/03/gore-praises-seattles-efforts-in.html

voted for the Bush war? I know he backed Dean - who was against it - but I was wondering if Gore, himself, was for or against it.

Please read the whole speech.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html

What Congress Should Do

I believe this proposed foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of exactly what may lie before us. Such consideration is all the more important because the administration has failed thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run - even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest at every opportunity that this will be a pretty easy matter. And it may well be, but the administration has not said much of anything to clarify its idea of what would follow regime change or the degree of engagement that it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place.

I believe that this is unfortunate, because in the immediate aftermath of September 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of goodwill and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do. My point is not that they are right to feel that way, but that they do feel that way. And that has consequences for us. Squandering all that goodwill and replacing it with anxiety in a year's time is similar to what was done by turning a hundred-billion-dollar surplus into a two-hundred-billion-dollar deficit in a year's time.

Now we have seen the assertion of a brand new doctrine called "preemption," based on the idea that in the era of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, and against the background of a sophisticated terrorist threat, the United States cannot wait for proof of a fully established mortal threat, but should rather act at any point to cut that short. The problem with preemption is that in the first instance it is not needed in order to give the United States the means to act in our own defense, either against terrorism in general or against Iraq in particular. But that is a relatively minor issue compared to the longer-term consequences that I think can be foreseen for this doctrine. To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq is the first point of application, it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states: Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran - none of them very popular in the United States, of course - but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply. It also means that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the administration, it would be simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president as a single individual, albeit head of state, decides that it is time.

Vice President Cheney said after the war against terrorism began, "This war may last for the rest of our lives." I kind of think I know what he meant by that, but the apprehensions in the world that I spoke of earlier are not calmed down any by this doctrine of preemption that they are now asserting. By now the Bush Administration may now be beginning realizing that national and international cohesion are indeed strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies.

He is against the war now. That's all that matters. Al Gore is right about so many issues that it would be a dream come true if he won. The last time I felt this way about a candidate it was Bobby. Instead, he was killed and we got Nixon.

I don't have the links in front of me, but by golly you just have to listen to those - and they will certainly satisfy any doubt - this man leaves no doubts about anything - no equivicator - no constraints - he's a different person than he was in 2000.

He has EVOLVED tremendously in terms of his ability to shoot from the hip, fuck the consultants like Brazille and Shrum and those morons.

he's hot just like Feingold, but he's more free and experienced.

nt

PNAC the whole shabang. and said so in speeches.

to see a Gore/Feingold or Gore and someone else for the 2008 campaign.

change that would be for America.

:)

It's building slowly, but surely. Gore has not outright said that he won't run again, in spite of the significant rumbling about it. We know that he's receiving a lot of mail about it. Yet he's still silent. This is very good.

I predict that he will run in 2008. This will totally upset the Dem candidate apple cart. I would hope that he would announce at a time to maximize this upset. Make a big splash and run hard, taking no prisoners.

I feel strongly that Al Gore is our party's only salvation. Who else is going to unite us? Hillary? Biden? Bayh? Any other DLC? No!

Okay, Warner and Edwards look good for that, too. But of those, Gore is the one who really gets my blood running hot. He's morphed himself into a fire-breathing dragon. That's what this country needs right now. Somebody who's not going to knuckle under to the Repugs. Somebody who can *lead* the Dems into the 21st century. As good as they are, I do not see Edwards or Warner achieving the unity that Gore could muster.

Hold back, Al. Keep us all guessing. Wait for your moment. Then, jump in.
We'll be patient.

charismatic statesman. He has the intellect, courage, vision and integrity to lead us out of the
terrible nightmare of fascism.

nt

a co-worker forwarded me an email of lies thursday about ollie north, and gore and clinton, saying that gore was on a committee that stopped investigation into osama.

all lies, debunked by snope.

i promptly sent the snopes website debunking it back to she who sent it.

that was SO much fun...

but the fact that they are starting to send around the lies say a lot.

GO AL!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

From my sister-in-law. She had sent it to several people, some family and some not. I got the links from Snopes in my reply and hit "Reply All" so everyone would get it. I asked her to check facts before she sends out BS like that. Never have heard back from her. I wonder why? :evilgrin:

;)

He's the only candidate in the "stable" that I'm remotely excited about. Off to read the article.

:hi:

Oh, please, please,please... Al Gore for President in '08

I believe Bruce Springsteen at one time posted one of Al's speeches on his website and said it was one of the best speeches, he had heard in years.

I sincerely believe Al could be our greatest President, he has that vision thing. He really does get it and he honestly cares about the people.

Kicked and recommended!



:kick:

for a second run by getting (and attracting) all of these press opportunities. It's smart for him to stay uncommitted for awhile. I get a tremendous feeling of safety and stability when I think of him as our president. Unfortunately, he will be saddled with the unsavory task of undoing the mess the Chimp has made. But I think he is one of the few people who can do it.

One of the very few completely qualified to take the reins from the buffoon in the OO.

all the national security issues ...

"Marty Peretz, publisher of The New Republic and a longtime friend of Gore, says, “if he were to find that there was some groundswell for him, I think it would be hard to resist.”

DU can be instrumental in the "groundswell" if we choose.

.. he'd be my first choice for pres in a heartbeat.

Go Gore!

When he ran for president, I thought he was a moderate Democrat.

When I heard him in his latest global warming documentary, I saw a brilliant man who should be president.

to actually undo most of the damage that Bush has done to our country quickly.

WE NEED YOU, AL!

issue with Gore..that was a media invention. What's so boring about Democracy and someone who knows what they're doing? The corporate media made it seem per rove that Gore was a "liar", too..who's the LIAR now? hmmmmmm?

Speaking of "boring"..how about that woman in Georgia who got ticketed for having a "I'm Tired Of All This Bushit!" bumpersticker on her car? :patriot: :patriot:

I found Gore to be anything but boring ... as with many others,I voted for him in 2000 and I will be ecstatic to vote for him in 2008!

You were elected once. You deserve to fulfill your potential--even though most of this nation doesn't deserve you!

Fu*k Yes! PLEASE! *ehem* :blush:

but i am not sure the party's power brokers will back him in 2008 either.
in any case, i'd vote for him again.

And after 8 years of fuck-ups, plenty more people would vote for him too.

I love Al Gore, and I think 08 is his time. I can't see anyone else who has the intelligence, the drive, the experience to fix this damned mess we're in. Someone who's competent, someone America has a comfortable level of knowledge about already. It would reassure the rest of the civilized world, too.

Please run, Al! I'll work 24/7/365 for you!

I would love to see him as my president. Heck, i'd even mea culpa and offer my
support to his goodwill. I kinda like him. I don't expect him to be my
champion, but if he layed off the drugs war, i'd come to appreciate him more.

He is reincarnated as the real great man he's been all along,
not the moth going in to the chrystalis(sp) prior to 2000-12-12-coup,
but the butterfly that has emerged.

Al gore is still the president as far as i'm concered, and when this load of
trailor trash is finally imprisoned and law restored, i hope to shake his
hand.

"He can't run in 2008 because he was in fact elected in 2000 and so has technically been President for the last 8 years."

I'm not being entirely facetious. I wouldn't put anything past them.

:banghead: They would try that, wouldn't they? :argh:

Think about it. Gore would win hands down.

Those two pack the punches we're going to need not just to win, but to get our country out of the abyss of a mess we're fallin' into.

Gore/Feingold 08 - Don't you wish we could vote tomorrow 'cause I don't think this country can take 3 more years, much less 3 more days of *.

It was superb, as have all his speeches since the Rehtugs stole the election. So glad you posted this link, in case anyone who didn't catch it comes through this thread.

Gore/Feingold '08!! :toast:

Julie

:toast:

I won't even read an article with such an idiotic statement right in the title!

There was a big article by some academic from Asia saying that the choice was
clear--rarely in the American presidential election was the choice so clear
between someone so eminently qualified for the job versus someone so obviously
unqualified for the job. The whole world saw this and yet we still allowed
the unqualified man to take the job, even after he lost. And then we all lost.

No wonder both our allies and our enemies have had their doubts about us ever since.

This being American Prospect - allegedly on our side publication, right?
Can't get the stolen electon right - not even the 2000 one - which pretty much most eventually figured it out...HOW F*ING CLUELESS!!!!!

other than the author — they can't be blamed for it.

before I want to see him on the campaign trail for himself in 2008. Has he been doing a lot of campaign appearances for local Democrats around the country? We HAVE to retake Congress this year.

stumping for Democrats in 2006.

Most of our National leaders have been spreading out across the country doing a series of those type events. That's what it's going to take. A sustained overt effort by Democratic Party leaders and spokespersons to show up and mobilize support in districts around the nation where Democrats have tough races in front of them. They've got to get out there, and they have to do devote real consistent time to the effort for retaking Congress. I want to see all of them popping up frequently in Ohio, and Florida, and Louisiana, and North Dakota, and Texas, everywhere. Dean's 50 State strategy. Now is the time.

:hi:

Here's a link you might find useful!

http://www.dnc.org/local.html

Al :loveya: Gore

Gore-Clinton 08

heh heh!

Some of us never disliked him in the first place.

second term "Oh, I've moved on to the Gore era!"

That "wooden", "stiff" thing was never true, even then. I honestly think I see an all-time great president in him. One that can call out sacrifices from the wealthy for the good of this nation. Someone who could "betray his own class"; the unforgivably stupid thing often said about FDR as he merely worked to SAVE the whole freakin' capitalist system from self-inflicted death.

Yes, he was a NAFTA henchman. But my reading of him now is that a) he was just doing his job of V.P. at the time and/or b) he has seen, along with the rest of us, what a stupid idea that was!

I admit, I could be totally wrong about this! :eyes:

In my "old-age" however, I am much more inclined to value "the full measure" of a man over doctrinal purity. I think we will be meeting the greatest change and challenges we have ever met in just a few years. It will take a man who can cobble together old and new ideas on the fly to cope with it all. I am more certain every day that Gore is that man!

...transition. Pay down the debt, then as the baby boomers hit their peak in benefits, start borrowing again to effect the transition.

This was brilliant because there were all sorts of positive effects in addition to being able to deal with Social Security.

I heard Clinton talk about this and I imagine that the two of them probably worked extremely well together given their differing but considerable intellects.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY