Had I not been bogged down by personal business the past couple days, I’d have shared with all of you the marvelous material I’ve been collecting on Al Gore’s historic speech on Monday. Here are the four stories we all participated in Sunday and Monday: “Gore Video & Media Reactions,” “What Al Said,” “Al Gore Speech Live-Blogging,” and “Al Gore Speech: 9am PT/Noon ET.”
The downcast view of Peter Daou, expressed in Monday night’s “Gore Video & Media Reactions” was fortunately premature. The response has turned out to be far more than we could have hoped for — and I think in good part because Gore’s speech was exceptional, daring, constructive, and — dammit — revolutionary!
Did any of you catch Larry King’s show Monday night? In which he featured video excerpts of Al Gore’s speech at the top of several segments? (Transcript).
Then there was Scottie McClellan’s pouty, loud response to Al’s speech which got a ton of press (692 stories and counting). And — below the fold — I’ve given you the back-and-forth between Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan that is priceless and worth scanning in full. Helen drives a Mac truck through Scottie every time she gets a chance! She cracks me up! (And don’t miss Al’s response to the White House accusations at Raw Story.)
Tuesday morning, Amy Goodman devoted a segment to Gore’s speech:
GOODMAN: Former Vice President Al Gore gave a major speech in Washington Monday accusing President Bush of “repeatedly and persistently” breaking the law by authorizing the NSA wiretaps. We play an excerpt of the address and the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union are filing separate lawsuits challenging President Bush’s order for the NSA to conduct domestic spy operations without legally-required court warrants. We speak with a staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights.
[Then Goodman interviewed Shayana Kadidal, staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, on Gore’s speech, the NSA spying scandal, and CCR’s lawsuit.]
Debate about Gore’s speech has highlighted many segments on CNN and MSNBC in the past two days. In related stories, the world’s best expert on the NSA, James Bamford, has been interviewed on numerous programs, including NPR (listen to last night’s interview on All Things Considered), about his participation in the ACLU lawsuit. Christopher Hitchens has written a brilliant explanation of his participation in the same suit.
Now comes this, via Howie in Seattle, from The Progressive Review, tipped by News Dissector (a great resource, by the way):
“Al Gore’s remarkable speech on Bush’s illegal wiretapping – combined with his earlier criticisms of the Iraq war and his longstanding attention to the dangers of climate change – make him the only major Democratic figure, save Russ Feingold, worth the attention of the decent and democratic wing of the Democratic Party. … continued below …
Scott and Helen are below … first, here is the conclusion of the Progressive Review writing:
Once you give him that attention, however, you are left with the problem that Al Gore isn’t always your friend, hasn’t always taken the positions he takes today, and can’t be relied upon to do right in the future. In other words, traits of your average politician.
From a literary standpoint, however, Gore is about the only interesting major Democratic politician around, in part because his compromises and failures in judgment seem not – as with the Clintons – based simply on cold, cruel calculation but are the errant result of the clash between clear perception and the miasma of ambition, honest assessment and easier articulations, a moral heart and amoral muscles.
Al Gore could have grabbed a piece of greatness, but often took what seemed the easy and clever way out. . . which repeatedly turned out to be no such thing, perhaps because the conflicts within himself could produce neither efficient cynicism nor charismatic nobility.
The causes may have included being the son of a senator, living like Eloise in a Washington hotel as a young man, going to St. Alban’s prep school where the future capital elite was trained in pompous and sometimes pathological certainty, and periodically visiting the strikingly different ecology of Tennessee.
No matter. He’s back. He’s says he’s not running, but such statements don’t count until the year in question. He’s only done a couple of things right lately, but that easily puts him at the head of the Democratic pack.
For progressives, Gore presents an interesting problem because regardless of whether one would choose to vote for him, his success at this time will have an effect on the success of all of us. Certainly, as the following suggests, there is plenty to concern one about Gore. You may find things that alternately please or annoy you or that you just shrug off. But if Gore becomes the prophetic voice of a revived America – failed and flawed as the sound may be – we will all be better off. For the moment, we should enjoy the resonance of anyone with that many microphones in front of him saying the right thing for a change.”
Helen and Scottie on Jan. 17, 2006 (full tranccript):
Q You kept saying “lawful.” It’s true the President — there is a law that permits the President to get a warrant and wiretap. But he has not been doing that; he’s been breaking the law. Al Gore said he broke the law. The ACLU is filing a suit. Why does he break the law? I mean, he has the means and the tools to do what —
MR. McCLELLAN: I reject that wholeheartedly, Helen. The legal justification has been spelled out by the Department of Justice.
In terms of Al Gore’s comments, I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds. It was the Clinton administration that used warrantless physical searches. An example is what they did in the case of Aldrich Ames. And it was the Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton administration that testified before Congress and said, “First, the Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the President has inherent authority” — inherent authority — “to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This is testimony, public testimony before the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I would also point out that a former associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration said that every President since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the Act’s terms — under President Clinton — and he pointed to the Deputy Attorney General’s comments that I just referenced. So —
Q Then you welcome a core test on whether this is really legal or not.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there’s going to be a Judiciary Committee hearing and the Attorney General has indicated he looks forward to going before the Judiciary Committee and discussing the legal justification for this. We have already spelled that legal justification out for people to look at. And he looks forward to talking to the Judiciary Committee and testifying on these matters.
Q Scott, let me just follow on the criticism of Al Gore, who, as Helen notes, called the spying program a dangerous over-reach; said that it should be looked into by a special counsel; said later that this may even be an impeachable offense. At the same time you’ve got Senator Hilary Clinton calling this administration one of the worst in U.S. history, comparing your Republican-controlled House to a plantation where dissenting voices are squelched.
How do you respond to what seem to be —
MR. McCLELLAN: You’re combining two things. Let me address the first one —
Q Right, but I mean, they’re combined in a sense that they go to how the party is governing, how the President is governing —
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just talked about Al Gore’s comments and I said Al Gore’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. If he is going to be the voice of the Democratic Party on national security matters, we welcome it, we look forward to the discussion. I think the American people clearly understand the importance of what we’re trying to do to protect them and prevent attacks from happening. And that’s why this authorization is so vital.
In terms of the comments you referenced from Senator Clinton, I think that they were out of bounds.
Q Well, what’s going on here, do you think?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
Q I mean, where is this coming from? You’ve got two of the most high-profile Democrats saying these things; what do you think they’re up to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we know one tends to like or enjoy grabbing headlines. The other one sounds like that the political season may be starting early.
Q So you think Gore is going to run again; is that — (laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll let you figure that one out. (Laughter.)
SEE ALSO: Al’s response to the White House accusations at Raw Story
Al Gore wasn’t my guy in 2000. I was passionately for Bill Bradley, and so was Darcy who was voting for the first time in her life. But we diligently supported him, despite our concerns.
I have watched, with amazement, his transformation in the past five years since the devastating theft of his presidency — and have been so pleased to hear him speak out so strongly and fearlessly.
Would I want him to run again? I have serious doubts, and one of them is that — in the heat of another presidential race — he’d revert to type, listen to the advisers too much, and hold back way too much. So, I reluctantly agree with this in the Progressive Review article above:
But can he become one of our leading voices? Damn straight! And if he isn’t running for anything, he’ll have an even more legitimate voice that people will listen to.
I defy any American to listen to his speech on Monday and not be deeply moved and motivated by his incredible words and passion.
He is a great man. He is a good man. He’s better not being saddled by the burdens of being a politician.
Bradley was my guy too. But I voted for Gore despite my misgivings. His concession speech was the first time I think anyone saw the real Gore. He’s only gotten better since.
I pray he runs in 2008. The fact that Hillary made her “plantation” remarks the same day tells me she thinks he will.
Hillary rather deserved the criticism she’s gotten — she was trying to sound like a black soul sister, whcih made it all the more inappropriate.
I hope it wasn’t Bill who urged her to do this — it’s the kind of thing he could have maybe gotten away with, because of his Southern roots and his closeness to black people. But not Hillary. If he was behind this, it was very bad advice, and doesn’t bode well.
I heard Al Sharpton last night, and it sure sounded like he was taking credit for supplying the quote. (He definitely supported it)
There are two ways to look at the old “safe” Gore and the new “passionately angry” Gore. One could argue that his passion is arroused when he has nothing at risk and the cautiousness returns when he does.
I have a different theory. I think Gore is appalled at the state Bushco has placed our country in, and realizes thast if he had run less cautiously and more passionately in 2000 he might well have won by more votes than Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court could steal. I believe Gore feels a sense of personal responsibility for what happened, and it has arroused this passion in him that we have not seen before.
I think the passion is real, and that it is here to stay, and I hope he decides to run. Gore is no longer in this for Gore. Now he is in it for us. Can we same the same thing about Hillary Clinton or John Kerry? Canm any of us imagine either of them giving the speech Al Gore delivered with such passion and conviction the other day?
It is time to re-elect Al Gore.
I actually think Daou was right about the msm coverage at the time he wrote that. There was a virtual blackout of the speech all afternoon. Then something interesting happened. The blogosphere was exploding with news of the speech. C-Span couldn’t handle the traffic of people trying to view the streaming video. E-mails started circulating expressing outrage at the lack of media coverage.
So here is my theory: We made the coverage happen. We inundated the networks and the cable news channels with e-mails and phone calls, and we forced the msm to make this a news story. We really do have the power to force the media to report the news. The Downing Street minutes were one example. White Phosphorus was another. The Gore speech may be our greatest triumph, because we made it morph from a “non-story” into a major headliner in a matter of hours.
I agree. The media has to be dragged kicking and screaming before they will cover “progressive” or liberal spokespeople.
That’s why the need to always take action to make them pay attention.
for this diary. Al Gore is a national treasure, and you speak for me with your diary.
Well, gosh…. he’s such a great spokesman for us with all of his experience wtih all branches of the government, and his inclination to use innovative technologies and ecology-smart measures.
Thanks for answering the question in my mind of how much impact this speech is having.
I saw the enthusiasm in the blogosphere Monday and skimmed the transcript. Frankly I didn’t understand the impact until I caught the speech on C-Span. What few seem to be talking about is the effect of Gore’s delivery. His new style jelled in a perfect match of content and delivery.
I blogged on this aspect, with speech excerpts:
http://dreamingup.blogspot.com/2006/01/captain-futures-log_17.html
It’s like I said in an earlier comment in the open thread speech diary…
I want to be spanked by Al. I have been such a baaaadd girl.
I really do hope he decides to do something though…one way or the other. I have a teeny tiny hope that he’s going to be the guy that says he’s not gonna run, all the while preparing to behind the scenes to take his rightful spot back. 😉 But I am not gonna hold my breath.
Run Al, run! Gore in 2008!
I was happy to vote for him in 2000 and I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
that it got more coverage than I had seen.
This isn’t the first such barn-burner he’s given out. The one at Washington University last year was even better.
I always knew that inside that third-way Veep was the old Senator Gore trying to get back out. I would not hesitate to vote for him for President. He won once before.
The speech was fantastic, I watched via Realplayer last night from CSPAN’s website.
Also, make sure you check out ePluribus Media’s fact-checked script.
I don’t want to think about the Dem’s 2008 candidates yet; I’m not ready to be that depressed. I really liked this though:
But if Gore becomes the prophetic voice of a revived America – failed and flawed as the sound may be – we will all be better off. For the moment, we should enjoy the resonance of anyone with that many microphones in front of him saying the right thing for a change.”
Let’s keep our eye on the ball & see what can be done to bring BushCo to account now!
You bet. I read this essay over at Counterpunch online by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in Reagan Administration. Couldn’t believe my lying eyes.
Titled “Gore Stands Up for the Constitution..A Challenge That Cannot Be Ignored” Go Give a look.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01182006.html
Roberts smacks the NYT for ignoring Gore’s speech, the Wapo for scant coverage. He also takes on the the Congressional Democratic delegation, noting only Feinstein was in the hall to give Gore support.
Think Gore did not hit the ball out the park? Gore spoke for patriots – moderate conservatives, liberuls, libertarians alike.
I’m saying to Al Gore, man it’s time to claim your presidency.
I’m really glad this is getting some play in the MSM. After Monday, I was pretty depressed over lack of coverage. If the blogs had a role to play in getting this story out, HOORAY !!
If Mr. Gore were to decide to run, it would excite and energize this old Democrat. But Ms. Hu’s comments also ring true. He does hold a unique position in the political arena because of what did not happen at the end of 2000.
I can live with either way Gore decides to play it. I only hope that he continues to speak out as clearly and forcefully as he did on Monday. We can’t have too many voices if they speak as directly as Vice President Gore and Governor Dean IMO.
I want to think I know some things. I only wished I had an inkling as to what makes Al Gore tick! I too was very proud of him on Monday. He gave us a great lesson in civics, that is a definite conclusion. One of the things I can honestly say, is I have heard him speak on other occasions, than political. I have heard him speak to the veteran community, more than once, in his career. Once, on vets day at the wall, he got such heckling I really felt sorry for him. I thought the community had lost all respect for him and his [position] [whether you liked him or not] and only cause of clintons scandal. It wasn’t Al, it was about Bill, after all. One had nothing to do with the other, I feel.
The other time was when we dedicated the Vietnam Women’s Memorial. I have to tell you, he did a great job..primarily cause he spoke of Dusty’s poem “Hello David”..This is my most favorite and I could just cry every time I hear or read it. By coming from the same war of which he was in, we all shared a bonding no matter what side we were on. This is what being human is all about, after all!
While I was trying hard to establish a sense of getting somewhere in working for the VWMP, in Tennessee, I wrote to Senator Gore. He had stood up for us vets on agent orange and did lots toward getting our goals met in the recovery of funds and monies, and education. He simulated me to help in that cause too, BTW. I wrote to him to support us [VWMP] in congress. Which, he did and he even bothered to write me back…I know a conscripted letter, you say…well no actually, it was from him in his own script and from his own heart. That in and/of itself gave me the notion he is for real.
So as I see it, he got my interest as soon as they said Mr. Gore was giving a speech to us about civics and how it should mean something to as Americans.
I have tried to catch all of his speeches since leaving office.
I do think he was restrained by the DLC back in 1999 and 2000. Of course, he should have pulled the plug. That is, after all, not how politics is played. And we all know it!
Anyhow, I had to put my 2 cents in here as to his credibility. Whether you like him or not, you have to know he was right on in this speech on Monday! I am not a gambler; therefore, I am not going to say he will run again or not. I can give my own opinion, but that does not matter, in the least. Lots of ppl run for office.
the old saying: “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” applies here.
the negative comments about al gore and hillary. whew! here they are, actually doing something and on the attack against bushco and some of us are complaining! we should all be encouraging them, at least when they do something right. it’s tough out there.
how many of you critics are actual politicians? it’s not easy, especially going up against the republican slime machine + the lapdog MSM. tweetie has spent two days hypocritically flogging hillary’s plantation remark. bushco is foaming at the mouth and tweetie is giving them his lead.
we poison the water every time we make catty remarks about potential democratic candidates. i’ll except lieberman. he’s been written off by everybody already and he really IS a phony and it looks like he’ll be taken care of by the home folks in connecticut.
i’m not really strong for either gore or hillary, but be realistic: either one could get the nomination. and if one or the other gets it I WILL VOTE FOR THEM.
i won’t pout because Christine Gregoire or Russ Feingold or Howard Dean aren’t chosen.
we didn’t have that luxury in 2000 but some people thought so and, unfortunately, we’re living with the consequences.
i will help elect a democrat in ’08. does that mean i don’t have any ideals? consider: john roberts and joseph alito. would al gore have submitted either one of those two for the supreme court? having more progressive new faces on SCOTUS alone would be worth putting up with whatever some of you don’t care for about gore.
work for anybody you want, but keep a realistic view of the big picture. no whiners need apply. stop pissing in the gene pool and remember who the real enemy is.
Thanks susan for howie in seattle.
I really enjoyed his analysis.
My problem with Al is that I don’t believe that post-concession speak Al would still exist after time at 1600 Penn Ave.
I’ve been a political junkie since … 1970? ’68? ’72 when I was 12?
I have been fed up with what I consider Dem political incompetence since … Raygun in 1981? and I don’t know what the answer is.
This grow’d up on welfare boy does know that I feel that any time or money going to the current crop of political incompetents only enables them to stay incompetent.
Dean / Gore in ’08 !!
rmm.
Susan,
I was surprised at how substantive the Larry King show was. I’d dismissed his show for all these years, associating him with irrelevant fluff subjects and insipid guests (though it is kinda fun when he has Tammy Faye Baker on– I swear they must surely be doing each other’s makeup and hair). But the King show you’ve linked to was outstanding.
And, was I hallucinating the other night, or did I really see Bill Maher substituting for Larry? CNN is so schizo these days– one minute I’m seeing Maher back on regular cable (how I lament that he’s behind the HBO subscription wall), and then the next, I’m learning they hired yet another bigot loudmouth whose name I’ve already forgotten.
My diary here entitled “Draft Al Gore!”, which was posted on Monday the 16th and was a Recommended Diary for a couple of days, also had many good comments on this terribly important topic! (I don’t care about promoting my own thoughts, but I really do care about promoting Al Gore’s criticism of Bush.)