Al Gore For President: The Man Meets The Moment
From the Huffington Post:
BRENT BUDOWSKY
Al Gore For President: The Man Meets The Moment
Imagine this: a President of the United States with vast domestic and international experience who would aspire to unify the American people, uplift a reformed American politics, and inspire friends of freedom and democracy everywhere.
Imagine: a President who would assume office with commander in chief quality experience who would be trusted on matters of war and peace; and with a temperament that respects the breadth and diversity of the American Family and brings people together in common cause...
MORE MORE MORE
Unlike virtually every major Democrat in Washington Al Gore was dead right about Iraq from day one. This commends him for the Presidency for two reasons, both equally important. The first reason is that with decades of national security experience he was wise enough and smart enough to know that the Iraq War was a tragic mistake. The second reason is profound: Al Gore had the courage and clarity to speak out clearly, forcefully, and unequivocally without the maneuvering and positioning that led virtually every leading Washington Democrat to be dead wrong...
Gore combined his knowledge of environment and energy with his interest in financial markets and global economics, through Generation Investments which brings together enlightened money with socially conscious business.
Gore has spoken passionately and eloquently about the Bill of Rights, human rights, political freedom, checks and balances and American Constitutional democracy. Others have spoken out as well, but in considering which candidate best articulates the American idea I commend Gore's sweeping speech at Constitution Hall and other strong, detailed statements on these subjects.
Al Gore understands from many decades of real world experience and a lifetime body of work in the House, the Senate, and as Vice President that we have three branches of government, two major political parties, key allies around the world, and that ALL must be respected and involved on the great issues of security...
There are other good candidates that will emerge. In my humble opinion, the man and the moment come together. The mission is clear, the moment is now, and the man is Gore.
Please click the title of the article to read the entire piece and the comments.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000
-
42,758 of 60,000
-
94,686 of 100,000
Comments
Al Gore, man of the moment
Douglas C. Smyth
http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com
I admire Al Gore for what he has done since the election was stolen from him. But I cannot forgive him for not fighting to prevent that larceny, for allowing his lawyers to narrow the legal issue to one he could not win on, one that could be dismissed by a partisan US Supreme Court.
I admire Al Gore, but I don't think he should run for President again. I don't dispute that he would be admirably qualified to BE President, but I question whether he would be able to run an effective campaign, crucially, whether he could win.
Al Gore is many things, but he is not folksy, he is not just folks, at all. His upbringing in an elite Washington hotel, his excellent education, is something he can't hide--and American voters hate people who sound smarter than they are.
Let's hope the American people have grown wary of Bushes, of crypto-folks, but I doubt they have.
Further, Democrats need a fresh start and fresh faces, not the same tired old ones that we've seen before. (I'm 67 so I can say this.)
Also, Democrats need leadership that is not tied to the status quo, nor perceived to be so entangled.
I have never seen Russ Feingold on TV, but if he were able to project personality the way (Bill) Clinton could, he would be the Man of the Moment, not Gore.
It took a lot more courage to oppose the war from the Senate floor than it did as a defeated and unemployed former politician, and Russ has much more experience in global affairs than did the present incumbent when he came into office. Further, he also opposed the Patriot Act, torture and all the erosions of our civil liberties perpetrated by the present administration.
No, Al Gore was the man of the moment in 2000, but he didn't fight to win what he should have won at that time. That is his tragedy. It would be our tragedy if he were to run in 2008 and really lose again.
right-on, douglassmyth
I agree with you 100% on what your saying about Al Gore, as for Russ Feingold, he is a new face in this Democratic pack of wolves. I think he is a true Democratic that has a heart for the US citizens, I think he wants to make America Great again and has the intelligence to make it happen. I also don’t think that his vision of the future is clouded with fame or greed in mine, I will be watching him very closely in the next few months.
In about two months we have a big change that has to take place before we can even think about the next President, we have to replace these Deadbeat representative from both Parties. We need representative that will represent the US Citizens and not the foreigners.
Well, we got ourselves a folksy one...
... one who farts to humiliate interns. Ain't he grand?
Gore was poorly advised in the aftermath of the 2000 election, and it's too bad he listened to those advisors. I believe he has wised up quite a bit since then.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I like Gore and he is well seasoned, but....
I like Gore and he is well seasoned, but there is something about Russ Feingold that has caught my interest. He just seems to me to be much like Jack Kennedy and maybe a bit like Bill Clinton also, in his ability to speak to the masses. He comes off as honest, hard-working and down to earth. Willing to help middle class folks achieve and live the American dream. I hope he runs, I know he will have mine and my husbands vote.
Gore/Feingold?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Maybe someone should ask
Maybe someone should ask Gore before launching his campaign:
Everyone's time, energy, and focus would be better served by supporting a candidate who has declared their intentions to run. Speculation and wishful thinking about 2008 at this stage of the game is pointless.
2008
Submarine USS Wahoo ss238
I second that,
We need to win in Novembra first, before we can even
think about 2008, because it would be worthless.
We all need to focus like we are behind by 40points for every
race.
I for one am helping out the 'Bryan Kennedy' campaign
he is running against the ignorant and evil Jim Sensenbrenner
in Wisconsin.
Bill
I may have missed something here, I believe this is a discussion about Al Gore not that anybody is campaigning for him or against him. Don’t be so uptight!
Not uptight, just realistic.
Not uptight, just realistic. Gore has stated that he will not run. Why discuss the "possibility" that he may?
Attempting to rebuild the Democratic Party from the top down has been a losing DLC strategy for over a decade. Those who are suckered in by it, are NOT doing the Party any favors. Regaining control of the House, the Senate, and State Governorships are much more important goals than retaking the Oval Office at this point.
Any discussion of who will run on the Democratic ticket in 2008 is premature, and pointless until after the Primaries. Everyone may have their "favorite" fantasy candidate, but until they have officially declared and survived the Primary process, idle speculation serves no useful purpose.
Bill, I really see no point talking about 2008 candidates.
Bill, I really see no point, other than for general discussion, talking about 2008 candidates.
Without a majority in 2006, a 2008 vcitory would mean very little. A democratic president would have a non-stop battle with a republican-controlled Congress, accomplish nothing and be voted out in four years. (See Bush I)
As a blog dedicated to returning a democratic majority to power, I agree we should focus our efforts on the here and the now. If we don't ebb the flow of Bush and company now, there may not be much left in 2008!
That said, I doubt Gore will run and we need to take a peak ahead at who the right candidates will be and who can win a general election. All discussion over DLC'ers is off; i.e. Hillary.
Looking at real democrats, my favorite by a stretch is Feingold. Question though, can he win a general election?
Your thoughts on Edwards?
-Frank
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
Frank, at this point I don't
Frank, at this point I don't have a favorite candidate for 2008. There are many good choices, but until they make themselves known, and actually commit to running, I will watch and listen.
I contend that we do not get to choose candidates, as only they can place themselves in contention. Our first crack at narrowing down the field comes with the Primary Election process, and attempting to make correct choices from among those who have committed to run.
I am much more interested in seeing fresh, new faces in the Legislative Branch, who will attend to the People's business, than I am in who will sit in the Oval Office.
Frank
Although I haven't settled on one candidate for 08 either- much too early for that- most people who have seen me post on here know that I do admire Edwards. A lot of the things he has been doing and saying impress me. He admitted he was wrong on his Iraq vote, which few Democrats who voted for it have done. He has blasted the BA on numerous occasions, and is a constant voice for the less fortunate everywhere. His work on poverty and the minimum wage have not been lost on me. He actually led Hillary in a poll taken a few weeks back in Iowa, 30-27%. Besides that he has travelled the country raising money for grassroots candidates at both the state and local level. Whether he runs or not remains to be seen, but I suspect he will. While I am not completely ready to support him only, he is on my short list of candidates I would hope it would come down to which also includes Russ Feingold, Wes Clark, and yes Al Gore. Either way, I do think Edwards is a class act, and an asset to our party.
Rich, you read my mind! ;-)
Rich, you read my mind! I did not want to tip my hat, but I have warmed-up to Edwards. My daughter, (A big liberal and chip off the old block!) has been a proponent of Edwards for a while. She sat me down last week and had me review a lot of Edwards' work and everything you stated appears accurate. He is on a short list of people I would consider and I think he sells well to the American people...if I can go out on a limb, he sorta has a JFK persona about him.
For me, his heart-felt apology demostrated he is a real man, not afraid to admit a mistake and smart enough to learn from it and grow, instead of IRAQ, IRAQ,IRAQ...STAY THE COURSE, STAY THE COURSE, POLLY WANTA CRACKER,CRAP! (Damn broken record!)
I digress.....at hand, what we have is a critical 2006 election that is paramount and '08 seems a long way off!
"If being liberal means critical thinking and informed dissent, instead of blind obedience and ignorant nationalism, then I am all for it!"
We
Tend to agree on most things. I guess we can chalk Edwards up in that column. I suscribe to his One America Committee Email list, and everything I have seen from him has made me not regret initially supporting him in 04. I think he is very sellable too. Whether or not he gets the nomination in 08, I do applaud his work, and appreciate it very much. I sort of see him as the heir apparent to the Kennedy vision. Not many other people talking about poverty when it is not in fashion. But like you, I also digress. We have plenty of time to pound out a nominee for 08. Hell, if we don't win at least one branch of Congress this year, I am afraid there may not be an 08!!!!!!!!! With this bunch in power, its frightening!!! Best wishes!!!
Al Gore
Wow, I'm really torn on this one...I haven't gotten over the thefts in 2000 (or 2004,for that matter) and I think Al got bad advice on how to fight on, but I think by withdrawing from the campaign (he never conceded) he has lived to fight another day. Some say they want a folksy president -- but isn't Duhhh-bya considered folksy? Give me the dry, staid Al over the happy idiot whose name I can't bear to repeat. Look at the straw polls on this site, Al commands the respect of 38% of respondents on Democrats.com -- is this not a barometer of the party faithful's opinion? With the exception of whacko right-wingers, most of us can learn from our mistakes, as I am sure Al has. I think that candidate Al Gore would instantly ignite a fervor that all Democrats -- and people who have realized that they were stuped -- can readily get behind. Our party has a system for choosing out nominees, and Al can certainly go through the motions like any other candidate, but I'll bet the house that he would quickly become the frontrunner, and would run circles around any potential Republican candidate. In any case, my Burro Brethren, keep your eyes on victory in November of 06 AND 08! Anthony Tapiz, Amateur Pundit and another American who is smarter than the pResident, Santa Cruz, California.
PS-
I call your attention to the fact that most, if not all, of Al's statements contain a hint of vagueness. Nothing he has said - and if it is established that he has then I will happily retract this statement - sounds anything close to a Sherman Statement.
Yes, I noticed that, too.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
If, in fact, Gore is being
If, in fact, Gore is being coy and waiting to be "coaxed" into running, I would not vote for him for that reason alone. I tend to take people at their word, and he has stated that he will not run on more than one occasion.
If he is lying, then he is no better than the politicians we have in office now -- on both sides of the aisle.
Bill, You must mean
Bill,
You must mean approximately no better than ;)
Piles of shit wrapped in puke would make better "leaders" than the Republican monopoly in power right now.
Jim
I was referring to the DLC
I was referring to the DLC traitors in our Party. They are in the same boat as the Republican "leaders."
Well I just listened to a
Well I just listened to a video of LIEberman being asked about GOP voters being brought out to vote for him AND THEN having been motivated to come out to vote VOTING AGAINST Democrats.
His reply???
Something like: They should have thought about that during the primary.
No need therefore to type my agreement with you. I'm sure you could see the steam coming out of my ears.
I guess that Joe Loserman
I guess that Joe Loserman doesn't even consider the fact that "they" DID think about that during the Primary. That's why he lost...
My new name for Joe???
Not Chickenhawk.
Simply: GreedyDove
I'm sick of these shit heads claiming to be tough on defense when they squander National Treasure, Soldier's lives, Nuclear Allies' good will, etc all for non military threats that might make a buck for special interests.
Lieberman is part of the "better safe than sorry" crowd. Well this is a zero sum game. The resources Lieberman directs toward Ireland (or was that Iraq?) are no longer available to defend the USA from real threats.
GreedyDove is taken.
I swear I did not know GreedyDove was taken.
Why does the phrase, "lower
Why does the phrase, "lower than a snail's belly," come to mind?
Loserman will fade away in time
I also feel that Loserman will fade away in time, I can’t see how the voters CT can possibly make a lame-duck Senator of him. I don’t think they need this at this time. And I also feel that CT will put what the Country is in need of ahead of personal feeling at this time.
I also feel that Al Gore gave-in to bad advice. He did let the voters down when he threw in the towel so quickly. Therefore I would not and could not vote for him again for President. To me he is history!
If Gore is " coy "
Yes, it's best to take Al Gore at his word. He doesn't want to run for president as much as he would like to be president. He said " Politics is toxic " and I don't blame him a bit if he doesn't want to go through the terrible process of a national campaign again. But I personally wish he wouldn't use that silly " Shermanesque " statement, that does sound coy. Isn't it time we supported a Democrat for office, any office, who doesn't play those silly games with words and meanings ?
The problem for any
The problem for any Democratic candidate is surviving the media blitz. I cannot recall much support for Gore in the media. And at times, politics gets in the way of nailing down what people care about the most. And that is security for their families, both in safety and in economics. When you move off into other topics, such the environment or civil liberties, you may make a few points with some of the audience, but you will lose the majority of voters if you do not sound the strongest in providing security for America.
I agree completely, Brite
I've been trying for six years to convince the powers that be that until we start building our own media infrastructure we're going to be treated like wild-eyed leftist crazies.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
And I totally agree with you
And I totally agree with you Carolyn. But Brite is wrong on ALL other points, and is obviously NOT a Democrat. Trolls give off a distinctive smell...
You said it!!!
You said it!!!
So you are saying that the
So you are saying that the very foundation of Democratic values -- civil liberty, and both social AND economic equality -- are "non-issues?"
The United States of America IS the most secure nation in the world, and people like you who have bought into the PNAC neocon Pax Americana rubbish are the problem -- not Democrats.
You also don't seem to know very much about the Democratic platform as put forth by the DNC. National security is prominently laid out as it pertains to protecting our citizens. Killing innocent Iraqi women and children does NOT protect American citizens. In fact it puts them at greater risk.
And lastly, Democrats have NOT lost the majority of voters. We have lost elections because of DLC "centrists" such as yourself and the likes of Joe Lieberman.
DLC Democrats
It's true that the democratic party has become divided between the informed DNC democrats and the ignorant DLC supporters. I use the word " ignorant " because there are so many democrats that don't know their party has opposing forces within it. Many of these folks are fine people and think that they're being loyal liberals who can safely support the democratic candidates who appeal to them, like Hillary Clinton or Lieberman, etc. They have no idea of the split, at all. They read the controlled newspapers and watch the pre-directed tv news , which does not really inform them of the difference between the true and false democrats. It seems that it is that faction of ' lost ' liberals that we must reach and win over, more than the right-wing republicans.
Bingo! We need to get our
Bingo! We need to get our base back.
Our Base
And I belive that the best way to " get our base back " is to support Howard Dean, head of the DNC, and who is determined to promote and fund local democratic candidates in all fifty states, rather than resorting to the old losing strategy of funneling all the resources and hype into those so-called ' important states campaigns.' We will continue to lose national elections by losing local elections. Dean faces stiff opposition among the powerful DLC leaders ( like Clinton ) who want the money to go toward what they think are the big battles. So, at any and every opportunity, we should rally 'round Dr. Dean. He's got his head screwed on right.
we have our base
and don't realize it yet. The repugs are holding a finger in the hole in the dyke of populism.
Consider this: with all the media, judicial, and political control and clout, still are losing control and power. They have done all they can to bend and twist reality, and still are slowly but surely losing power. The people are coming out to vote repugs out. Praise Jesus for real.
"Vote or Die" DCH
80% of Americans...
... are potential Democratic voters, but the Democrats keep trying to appeal to the 20% they'll never reach.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
we gotta think like
the religeous right.....they go for ALL hearts and minds. I truly believe we are all Dems and some are somehow deluded by greed or some self serving policy position into being repugs. When the layers are peeled back it really is about the economy, and the needs of the poor and stability of the middle class.
"Vote or Die" DCH
Ok I didn't mean that. Lets go for 90%. There are some wackos we really don't want to talk to. Just thought of Ann Coulter and threw up in my mouth.
Bottom 90% = Annual Income
Bottom 90% = Annual Income of $100,000 a year and less.