I have never been a fan of Al Gore. I opposed his candidacy in 1988, and I actively opposed him in the primaries of 2000. I basically thought he was a phony. But, recently, he has thrown aside the advice of consultants and started speaking his mind. And now that he is isn’t acting like a phony, or trying to “rip the lungs out of anybody else who’s in the race”, I am warming up to him. In 2000, I didn’t make the final decision to vote for Gore until the last week of the campaign when I read an interview he gave to the Rolling Stone. I was so impressed with his knowledge of the technological world, and his forward and innovative thinking, that I resolved to hold my nose and give him my support. He has just given another interview, this time to Philadephia’s City Paper, that is equally impressive to the one he gave back in 2000. I highly recommend reading it. He’s also on the attack in other venues. For example, The Guardian:
In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a “recovering politician”, but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.
Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: “If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right.”
That’s the kind of talk I want to hear from my representatives. Why hold back? Why use ‘corrupt’ when you could use ‘thief’? A ‘renegade band of right-wing extremists’ is exactly what we have on our hands. Remember Bush saying he was a ‘uniter, not a divider’? Well, he’s just divided his support down to 29% of the country. The least morally developed people in the country, apparently, are all that he has left. No harm in calling them thieves. No harm in calling them liars. No harm in calling them out and putting their lies and crimes right back in their face. Al Gore gets it. And so, I’m giving him a second look.
The Guardian piece does mention, however, that he has given his fundraisers the green light to sign on with other campaigns. That’s a strong signal that is he isn’t running in ’08.
Booman,
In one of the Gore discussions last week Arthur Gilroy and I explored the idea that maybe Gore has decided to be “The M.L.K. of Global Warming.” As I said then, we could use one of those, too. If he’s giving his fundraisers the green light to work for others it would seem that he’s headed down that path – at least for today, LOL.
Or he doesn’t want his momentum to crest too soon by tipping his hand now in even the most indirect way. He’s smart enough to play that game, too. Who knows what he’s thinking? We never will know – at some point down the road he may genuinely feel called upon to run, or it may all have been smoke and mirrors all along.
For now, I’ll just judge him by his words and deeds, and I’ve not seen anything to complain about there compared to other public figures (running or not).
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. It’s amazing how bad consultants are. Isn’t it?
Hi Booman, I am curious at how you came to the conclusion that Gore was a phony, etc. I had the opposite opinion of him from the time he first reached some prominence and listened and read a lot of his postions and work in environmental issues and global warming. During the election one of the final reasons I gave to Rep. members of my family was that he was for protecting the environment and it was clear that Bush and Co. was not.
I wonder how much of people’s negative opinions were generated or perpretrated by the way he was portrayed in the media and comedy shows.
I have a feeling that he does not intend to run again and I think that is a wise choice for him and I would not like to see the whole smear campaign heaped upon him.
Speaking of global warming I posted a diary on ‘Haaarp’ that I think should be given some attention both in Congress and in the Press.
Oh, don’t get me started on Al Gore’s prior phoniness or I could on all day.
I really don’t want to do that, since my intention here is to give him some props.
But since you asked, this was the example that made me want to shun him as a moral leper.
Exploiting the death of your sister, or conversely, pandering to the tobacco growers that contributed to her death, is pretty ugly. Phony is a kind word for it.
Opportunist. Probably feels he’ll do better $$ as a consultant.
Right. Because nothing really lines up lucrative clients like spending your time giving talks about a scientific topic that lots of people are in denial about.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
what about part d reform and single payer health care?
Now, ignoring the importance of those is denial.
Well BooMan, that was an example of throwing out the baby’s intellect with the bath water.
I enjoy the opportunity to read and interact with you. But with all due respect, all politicans indulge in pander – comes with the territory. And no comparison with Bush who exploits the death of thousands who died on 9/11. Everyday man, 10 times a day in one speech.
In 2000 millions of dems stayed home because they held the view Gore was stiff; not telegenic, warm and cuddly. A decided preference for the sizzle and cotton candy, instead of the steak we got ‘a handsome bloke with a swagger’ that’s stuck on stupid and unaware of the disaster he has caused.
Anyhow we accept converts. Welcome to the party.
One love. Peace.
Hell…I voted for him. I just didn’t have any respect for him.
Good!
Who would meet your standards as a presidential candidate?
None of the current dems that everyone is fawning over, that is for sure.
so you’ll be voting for Ralph Nader or ?????
I wasn’t aware that I needed anyone’s approval re: my vote. So, STFU and deal w/it!
I had the opposite reaction to Gore. I’d been following his career for years before Clinton picked him as a running mate, and for me at least, that was a lot of what made me support Clinton.
Unfortunately, now that Gore has a soul, he won’t run. We’ll be stuck with Hillary, who has none.
Oh, are you tempting me…
I think the phoniness issue had a lot to do with the company he kept, but even if not, I still allow for the possibility that the human heart can change. What Gore weent through in 2000 was nothing short of a political tar and feathering, and that was before he went through the debacle of the Florida recount scandal. At the end of that, when he conceded I thought we saw the real man for the first time. His concession speech was authentic and sincere, brave and generous. It was far more than Bush deserved, and I felt that way at the time.
I believe that since that time Gore has been transformed. People forget that he was practically the only major Democratic voice speaking out against the coming war in Iraq before the invasion. He was an early supporter of Howard Dean, and did not withdraw that support even after it became apparent that Dean had lost. And his concern about global warming and climate change has been consistent throughout his career. I find the phoniness charge to have been largely a fabrication of the media, in much the same way that Kerry was painted as a “phony” (the very words my GOP Dad used to me in the Fall of 2004 to describe his support for Bush).
To me, Clinton was always the more phony of the two, but he had charisma, and I believe Gore’s qualities suffered in comparison to Clinton’s ability to charm the electorate, even as they recognized his flaws. With Gore, the flaws were all the press would talk about. Further, I believe that the political consultants that dominated the Democratic party at that time did him no great service.
Was Gore a politician who sometimes acted opportunistically? Sure, but name me a politician who hasn’t done that. It is the nature of the process with which we are afflicted, a process which makes fund raising the sine qua non of politics.
I was no great lover of Gore in 2000, but it seems to me that maintaining a prejudice against him now is just foolish. Gore (and Kerry as well) lost in large part because the system has been gamed by the Republicans. We, as progressives, liberals and Democrats, need to stop this demonization of our candidates after they lose. I’d feel fortunate if Gore ran again, for he is uniquely qualified for the office of the President, and a man who has, in my opinion transformed himself as a politician, as a leader and as a human being.
that’s a very fair assessment, and one that I am coming around to.
I will say this, though. I never really though the press coverage of Gore as a phony was that off the mark. Sure, the internet thing and some of the other stuff was repeated uncritically. No doubt. But I think he was a phony, through and through, and the fact that you now see someone with a totally different personality is less proof that he has changed than proof that his prior self was a fraud.
The worst of the media coverage in 2000, in my opinion, was the lack of vetting of Bush and the non-stop fellating of John McCain, a man that never had half the chance that Bradley had of winning the nomination. People forget that Bradley had more money than Gore and was leading him in the polls in New Hampshire until he got crushed in the Iowa caucuses and that Bradley lost NH by a measely 4,000 votes.
Had he won in NH, he would have been part of the big story of upsets along with McCain, and with more money than Gore to push on. Instead, all press went to McCain and Bradley never was heard from again.
However, the reason that I dislike Gore was a remark that was made during the 2000 election re: the auto industry and those who depended on it for an income. I was all set to vote for him, but, after that statement, I voted for Nader instead. And, for the life of me, I do not remember the specifics, but it really rubbed me (and a lot of others in MI) the wrong way. That is one reason for my “Screw Gore” attitude.
Another is the fact that he is so far removed from reality that he doesn’t know or care what people who have to work for a living have to face.
Do I care about global warming? Yes.
Do I care about the invasion of Iraq and those who have been killed/disabled in it? Yes.
Do I care about immigration rights? Yes.
Do I care about Plamegate? Hell no. Joe Wilson is making a nice buck hitting the lecture circuit and from his book.
What do I care about? The most important issues in the country today are health care and disability rights, as the two go hand in hand.
And, there is no candidate that is forcefully speaking out on either.
I gave those who are considered possibilities, but, if they do not reflect my views why should I support them?
I didn’t vote in 2000, I was in San Diego finishing the last semester of my law degree and my registration was still in Alabama where I wasn’t familiar with most of the candidates. I moved to NW Florida right before Christmas that year, if I had been eligible to vote there I would probably have held my nose and voted for Gore just because Bush was the first candidate since Reagan that I actively didn’t like (though at the time it was just a visceral distaste for his moron-of-the-people image, the real hatred developed in the first few arrogant months after his inauguration).
Before 2000, I had written in Jimmy Stewart in the previous 3 presidential elections (because he was a far better actor and man than Reagan). I didn’t like any of the candidates enough to vote for them and I felt like a vote was something that should be earned, though I have changed that opinion in the late ’90s after the Republican party veered so far into slime.
I am probably rare among democrats in not voting for Clinton either time. If I had known what a good job he would do under such duress I probably would have, but I never sensed that he really had any core beliefs at all and based my lack of enthusiasm on that.
Here’s an email I just wrote this evening in response to a so-called “progressive’s” criticism of Gore:
****************
No one can say with complete certainty what the world would be like today if Al Gore had assumed the Presidency in 2000. I can, however, point to a few differences with some degree of confidence.
The United States would not have invaded Iraq. We would not be engaged in a senseless war that has cost tens of thousands of lives and ruined countless others.
The United States would not be however many trillions of dollars in debt that it is today, thanks to the waging of that war and to profligate tax cuts for the rich.
The United States Government would not be engaged in torture as a matter of official American policy, in the name of the American people.
We would have an Administration that supports the Kyoto Accord and would in all likelihood have developed a sensible energy policy, as opposed to one in the pocket of Big Oil, pretending the problem does not even exist.
Most importantly, we would have a President with intelligence, humor and the ability to learn, change and grow in response to circumstances.
Go read or watch Gore’s speech in San Francisco in the fall of 2002, when he clearly lays out the illegality and stupidity of invading Iraq. Watch his speech from this last Martin Luther King day, when he warns of the dangers of unrestrained executive power and the lawlessness practiced by the Bush Administration. In these and other speeches he’s made over the last four years, he speaks for me, albeit in a far more intelligent and comprehensive fashion than I can manage. He speaks for a lot of other Americans, and not just Americans, but people around the world who recognize the dangers and tragic consequences of unrestrained, arrogant American power. He speaks to our better nature as well, to what is best about this country, to those things we can aspire to and the light which we are capable of shining.
Maybe these things aren’t enough for some progressive purists. I would ask such people to consider the consequences of demanding purity, rather than settling for good. We’re living with the consequences now.
We could have had so much more.
*
******************
I wanted to say something like, “compared to these things, everything else is nuance,” but it sounds snarky, and I know there are many, many vital issues to consider, health care being in the top five at least.
I really believe that we are at a crisis point in many areas, not just global climate change. I look at Al Gore as someone with the experience, passion and intelligence to hit the ground running. We don’t have time for a learning curve. I honestly believe that.
It’s not that I wouldn’t like to have a more progressive, egalitarian country. But I want to stop the fucking Titanic from hitting the iceberg first. And I don’t want any more unjust wars being waged in my name.
As for Ralph Nader?
(biting tongue. Restraining self)
Streetkid, I think I have some understanding of your priorities, but I have to take issue with your dismissal of Plamegate. What happened to Valerie Plame is symptomatic of a whole system of abusive behaviors that basically is willing to sacrifice “inconvenient” individuals – and all of the good work they might have been doing – to brute political imperatives.
The kind of Administration that would try to destroy Valerie Plame for political revenge doesn’t give a shit about your welfare, or mine, or anyone else’s who isn’t in their power clique.
There are other arguments to be made about the damage outing Plame did in international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, but I’ll stick with what I think it says about the Bush administration on a more meta-level.
When Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson drop their self-centered bullshit and start giving a damn about people like Eddie Rosa, who died because he could not get his rx’s under Part D or the others who are having a rough time with it, I’ll consider it important. But, wtf do they care–they have medical insurance!!!
Oh, boy.
I don’t really know what to say here that isn’t going to inflame you. Healthcare is hugely important, it’s a crisis, I agree with you. But I don’t expect every person in a public role to have the same priorities, or at least, to speak to every issue with equal weight. How do you know what the Wilsons think about health care? I’m sure you’re right to assume that they have insurance, so it’s not as vital an issue for them personally. What’s vital for them personally is that the Bush Administration has made a a mission to, y’know, try and ruin their lives! So for them, the abuse of power by the Executive Branch probably has a little more emotional weight.
I just had an exchange with a friend who feels that voter fraud is THE most important issue we face right now. This came up specifically in comparison to health care. I disagreed. But I can’t blame her for having different priorities than I do.
I tend to see things sort of wrapped together. The same kind of Administration that doesn’t give a damn about poor Americans and their access to health care, abuses its power, shows contempt for the rule of law, trashes the environment to enrich its cronies and is basically unpatriotic in that it doesn’t give a shit about the welfare of a majority of Americans.
There are a lot of hugely important issues, and all of them require people with passion to move them forward.
I know what you are saying. And I agree that voter reform is as important, if not more important, than health care. I posted something earlier where I said that maybe health care reform, specifically a single payer system, will follow voter reform. But, the fact of the matter is, if health care is inadequate, there would be fewer voters. Maybe that is the whole idea…I dunno.
What’s vital for them personally is that the Bush Administration has made a a mission to, y’know, try and ruin their lives!
But, the admin did NOT succeed! Don’t the lives of others count? Why the hell do the Wilsons feel they are entitled to having their issues resolved first? Are they that selfish and uncaring? (Like I said, Joe Wilson is making a nice $ from his book and the lecture circuit.)
Being on SSD/I ($620.00 per month) and having Part D, I have repeatedly been told “wait until the more dems are elected.” Why? So the dems can do nothing other than whine “The President won’t sign our legislation and we don’t have the votes to pass it over his veto. Vote more of us in. Donate to our campaigns.”?
Screw waiting–the first time a single-payer health care system was advocated in this country by a candidate was by Teddy Roosevelt. And that was in the last century!
The Wilsons can STFU and wait for a change. But no, they assume that others, who have been put thru the wringer by this administration, have sympathy for them. Why? They have none for others.
I don’t recall reading anything about either of them giving Congressional testimony/speaking out re: Part D or healthcare. The Wilsons speak out in favor of a single payer health care system, I’ll think about speaking out for them. Until then, no way, shape or form. as they have a hell of alot of nerve crying for sympathy.
Did you know that 18,000 people die a year due to lack of health care/no insurance? (I’ve done the research.) The lives of 17,998 people take priority over 2 anytime, especially when one is such a publicity hound that he can’t stay out of the spotlight.
Back however many years ago I worked on Jerry Brown’s presidential campaign and did a lot of research into single-payer. It’s so logical, so sensible, will save so many lives – and money. And yet, here we are. It’s taken a crisis to get a lot of people to even think about single-payer without screaming “socialized medicine!” immediately after. Now, even big CEOs – Peter Chernin of News Corp., for example – recognize that health care is a crisis, because it’s hurting their bottom line. Not the best reason to motivate change, but whatever works.
I just don’t get your anger towards the Wilsons, is all. There’s really no reason that the health care issue would come up in any public statements he’s made – he’s not running for office.
and (I hit post too soon) I don’t think they are asking for their issues to be resolved. How could they? He is talking about the lies that got us into Iraq and the personal revenge that the administration took on them because of his NYT editorial. The only way those issues will be resolved is by the Bush Administration and the neo-con philosophy that drives their foreign policy – being thoroughly repudiated, and Bush being out of office.
I don’t see how it’s his responsibility to speak about health care.
If he runs for office (which I doubt), then yes.
As I asked what gives them the right to come into the district that I live in for an audience? There are issues that effect this district that are a lot more important than the Wilson’s self-serving crap. Per your words: just as it is not their responsibiity to speak up on health care, it is not my responsibility to speak up for them.
And I will go a step further: I think a single-payer health care system (and voting rights) are more important than the Wilsons, as I have already made my case it, and RFK Jr did the latter.
From where I sit, on SSD/I and Part D, the administration has taken revenge on me for circumstances in my life that I have no control over. And here is something else–I may hit the donut hole and be unable to afford my prescriptions for my epilepsy. If that happens, it is very likely that I will go into a condition referred to as status eppillepticus, which requires immediate hospitalization and is usually fatal.
Think about it.
Because other people in your district are interested in what they have to say about issues other than health care. They want to hear what Wilson has to say specifically about the Bush Administration and Iraq and the abuse of executive power. If people didn’t want to hear about this, he wouldn’t be getting these lucrative speaking offers.
Al Gore has talked about a lot of things (and has come around to supporting single-payer). But for him, the single most urgent issue is global warming, and that’s what he’s focused on. Are you saying that he should just drop that and focus on health care?
I’m not going to say that I completely understand your situation because that would be pretty condescending of me. But god knows I agree with you that health care is in crisis and needs to be solved right now, and that the system should have been fixed a long time ago.
And I think your diaries on the subject have been excellent.
It really irritates me when people who don’t even live here in this district tell me what is going on here and what people are interested, especially when I know otherwise. Add how to vote or who to vote for to that!
I don’t think that’s what I did. Maybe there’s something in this whole issue I’m missing.
Isn’t it fair to say that people must be interested, or they wouldn’t go hear him speak?
I was at a speech Jim Marcinkowski gave about Plame and Wilson and the reaction of others in attendance was, That’s nice, but what about jobs, health care, gas prices…(paraphrasing) And he didn’t have an answer.
Face it, people in this district don’t care about Wilson and Plame!
So, I would very much appreciate it if you would stop harassing me and repeatedly telling me what I know for a fact is incorrect information.
I live here, you don’t. So save it for your district and have a pleasant evening.
Wow. You think I’m harrassing you?
I’m speechless.
Here’s the words I have: I was continuing a conversation that I thought we were having. I disagreed with you. You got pissed off. I’m sorry about that. But I wasn’t rude, I wasn’t aggressive, I made no personal attacks on you what so ever. I was trying to make my argument, just like you were trying to make yours.
You want to call that harrassment, well, I guess you already have, but I find that pretty strange.
Jim Marcinkowskit(the DINO who is challenging the wingut in this district) goes on and on about Wilson and Plame. Wilson has even spoken at a fundraiser! Wilson and Plame don’t live in this district–I do!! Yet I am told to “wait”–Wilson and Plame are more important is very strongly implied, although it has not been stated outright.
What about others who live in this districtand are interested in seeing a single payer system? What gives the Wilsons the right to have their problems take priority over the those of the people in this district?
And, it wouldn’t suprise me in the least if Wilson tries to in the future!
Guess who I won’t be voting for?