Al Gore's Win, America's Loss...

[Blue Belle]

Al Gore's win, America's loss
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2007/10/12/gore_nobel/

<SNIP>It's like the best revenge fantasy ever, come true: Everyone who was ever mean to you, who wrote you off or sabotaged you? That nasty high school guidance counselor? The catty New York Times columnist? The partisan Supreme Court justice? Well, they can kiss your Oscar, your Emmy or your Nobel Peace Prize, because you won all three! In the same year!

I'm sure Al Gore doesn't think that way. But I do. I find myself a little dispirited by Gore's well-deserved win. I feel like it's the universe telling us what a broken political system we have: This is the man who could have been, should have been, our 43rd president, but our political elites did him in. Especially the media elites, who chased stories about a blue dress and earth tones at the close of the 20th century, abetting the selection of George W. Bush, a man whom history is almost certain to judge our worst president. And he still has an additional 15 months in office.

I know that Gore's loss made him a better person. His exile liberated him to be the fierce fighter and truth teller he has become, on Iraq and global warming. He ran a bad campaign in 2000, unsure about how populist to be, running away from the Clinton legacy, but it was still good enough to have made him president. I find myself watching the sliming of young Graeme Frost and comparing it with what happened to Gore: The same political bottom-feeders are still at work; they'll do what they can to personally, viciously smear their political opponents, even children. (But at least they're not being aided by the New York Times Op-Ed page on this one. Paul Krugman's column today is great, by the way.)

I'm proud of Al Gore, I'm happy for him. I expect the media to turn his big win into a problem for Democrats: Will he run for president? Does the fact that people are raising the question mean the party has bad candidates? Should Hillary Clinton be afraid? Should John Edwards just pack it all in? Should Barack Obama run for running mate instead? I don't expect Gore to enter the race -- he's changing the world doing what he's doing right now -- but we'll see what he decides. In the meantime, I hope he savors his win, and I'll try not to think about our loss.

-- Joan Walsh <SNIP>

[bdamomma]

1. our big loss is right

and look what we are left with, a psychotic POS in the WH. Our world would have been alot better with President Gore, but we cannot go back with should of's and could of's

[peacetalksforall]

2. I don't think he's a warhawk or warhawk vulnerable. I'm holding out

for him. War and peace. War or peace. That's where it's at for me.

If you're about preventing the death of earths' inhabitants you don't kill them in war - for a bunch of ceo's, their stockholders, and profiteers and use the opportunity of creating terror to own the humans and the resources below their feet and above their head and their animals and species as well.

I remember when he was running in 2000 and corporation news propaganda teams were making Gore out to be stupid with the constant lies about failing college. He had already written a book about the environment (maybe two) and knowledgeable scientists came out to say the book was sound science, on target, and well done.

When you think about it - xx per cent of candidates are for life. xx per cent are for death and control of people for the ownership by a few. Some can't speak plain words about war and profiteering. They take up issues and say things as if we are all living in Pleasantville.

My choice is obvious - to me.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Look On The Bright Side

The MONARCHY will be continuing with QUEEN HILLARY.

Clinton Part II is just around the corner.

Our destiny has been determined, whether we like it or not.

[tandem5]

4. nice editorial, thanks for posting it nt

[AlGore-08.com]

5. Except that it has the same old b.s. memes about the 2000 campaign

Gore's "bad campaign" began right after the impeachment vote and as a result Gore started 20 points behind, he was outspent by over 2 to 1, had the media actively working against him, and a party that was content to let him loose. If Gore had run a bad campaign he would have lost by 20 points. If Gore had run a REALLY bad campaign, he would have lost by more than 20 points.

"Running away" from the Clinton Legacy was not a mistake in 2000. Clinton's job approval was in the low 60s, but his personal approval ("likability") was in the toilet in 2000. Nationally, 60% of Americans disliked Clinton as a person; in swing states, it was a little worse (61% - 64%). Clinton was such an albatross in 2000 that Hillary Clinton ran her 2000 Senate campaign as "Hillary!" rather than "Hillary Clinton". She also had Bill Clinton work for her behind the scenes rather than in front of the voters and cameras. (Why doesn't she ever get grief for "running away from Bill Clinton"?)

Every time folks get this wrong, they make it harder for us to fix the problems that the 2000 election highlighted. If Gore ran "a bad campaign", we don't have to fix the media or vote fraud or the Supreme Court or campaign financing - - we just have to find a candidate that all the powers that be "like".