Skip to main content

September 23 2009, New York City Politician Al Gore at the Clinton Global Initiative on September 23 2009 in New York City
About time

Al Gore has been everywhere lately. Just last week he presided over his "24 Hours of Reality" project which was seen by millions globally! And without even taking a nap the very next day he gave a talk at Making Progress, where he was fired up, more so than many had ever seen him.

He touched on many subjects:

He spoke about how income inequality threatened the American Dream, subprime mortgage systems helped start the Great Recession, and how the world is still dealing with the credit crisis as a fallout.
But unsurprisingly, he reserved his passion for his signature issue; the environment:
“Now we have, on the books of the large, public multinational energy companies, $7 trillion of subprime carbon assets,” he said. “Their valuation is based on an assumption that is even more ridiculous and absurd than the assumption that these people that couldn’t make a downpayment or monthly payments were good risks for home mortgages. The assumption is that those $7 trillion can be sold and burned.”

“They will not be sold and burned. They cannot be sold and burned.”

Gore went on to describe how humans are putting 90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day, “as if it is an open sewer.” That pollution traps the same amount of heat as the energy from “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs going off every 24 hours.”

This is a man on a mission. Of course he is passionate about climate change but there may be more to it than that. I've been hearing talk about the possibility of Gore running in 2016 if Hillary decides not to run. Nothing in MSM just in the trenches. Hillary is not a lock but it's her call. I for one would love to finally have Gore as president, with a credible V.P. of course. I can not imagine a stronger leader to lead us out of the disaster of climate change.

Originally posted to beach babe in fl on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 07:57 AM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS, Climate Hawks, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (161+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites, socialismorbarbarism, Radiowalla, burnt out, greenbird, kpardue, RJP9999, pat bunny, Gowrie Gal, Pluto, Glen The Plumber, elziax, middleagedhousewife, Mentatmark, jan4insight, anodnhajo, the fan man, Paul Ferguson, Sandino, Words In Action, Lily O Lady, IndieGuy, clarknyc, dewtx, Sue B, EricS, TBug, smiley7, asym, nomandates, belinda ridgewood, elwior, Shockwave, MKinTN, flitedocnm, bnasley, roses, Nulwee, John Crapper, DRo, vivadissent, Cassiodorus, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, wv voice of reason, USHomeopath, Selphinea, petulans, blackjackal, where4art, MPociask, wader, oortdust, CanyonWren, aseth, forgore, maggiejean, begone, Rosaura, Knockbally, lgrabowski, Matt Z, Assaf, Sapere aude, TomP, zerelda, MJ via Chicago, atana, Josiah Bartlett, Jim R, Wreck Smurfy, el cid, WisVoter, carpunder, Gorette, limpidglass, tofumagoo, Mimikatz, DEMonrat ankle biter, Heart n Mind, bfitzinAR, Chaddiwicker, eeff, caryltoo, I love OCD, Sprinkles, ColoTim, OleHippieChick, citizen dan, Andrew F Cockburn, LaughingPlanet, SeaTurtle, Involuntary Exile, The Hindsight Times, No Exit, CA Nana, bronte17, martinjedlicka, Mr MadAsHell, Miss Jones, Brian82, catilinus, goodpractice, collardgreens, AllisonInSeattle, blackluck, BYw, skybluewater, LSmith, ATFILLINOIS, slowbutsure, eagleray, peachcreek, rbird, blue91, Eric Nelson, radical simplicity, mofembot, julesrules39, LillithMc, JayDean, Iron Spider, sfcouple, noweasels, brainwave, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, stevenwag, rebel ga, FischFry, anyname, Mystic Michael, Mary Mike, dandy lion, DSPS owl, daeros, MsGrin, Zinman, katrinka, Suzanne 3, victoria2dc, rainmanjr, angry hopeful liberal, deepeco, GAS, Linda1961, Gary Hurd, ivote2004, Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, tarheelblue, pundit, LI Mike, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Hoghead99, VeggiElaine, davehouck, iglarmobley, unfangus, wu ming, Barbara Marquardt, Ignacio Magaloni, melo, flevitan

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 07:57:12 AM PDT

  •  When Gore Begins Criticizing Obama's Policies (15+ / 0-)

    I will listen to him again. Not impressed with Gore bashing Australia while ignoring what the United States is doing under this Democratic president. The hypocrisy stinks. If Gore truly wants to run for president again, he best start distancing himself from Obama's horrid policies. Otherwise, why bother?

    •  the only certain thing about 2016 is that the (22+ / 0-)

      candidates will not be perfect (never are) But, Gore could very well be the best

      Macca's Meatless Monday

      by VL Baker on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:19:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe ... (9+ / 0-)
        Gore could very well be the best
        But not if he's going to continue Obama's environmental and energy policies. From what I know, Gore is a committed neoliberal, just like Obama and The Clintons. Am I mistaken about that?
        •  Yes. (15+ / 0-)

          Unless you believe that the past twelve years or so he was educating the world about catastrophic climate change for the same reasons that Ted Cruz went pheasant hunting in Iowa.

          •  i Believe Al Gore Has Become Fabulously Wealthy (4+ / 0-)

            since leaving politics. That is neoliberalism's signature. Moreover, if Gore disagrees with Obama's business-oriented approach to addressing AGW he has been pretty silent about it.

            Sometimes not good enough really means not good enough. The physical world doesn't care about our nonsensical politics. More carbon into the atmosphere last year than ever before in history. That's all the physical world cares about. Failure is failure.

            •  who is BETTER on the issue of climate change? (17+ / 0-)

              I'm not necessarily an Al Gore fan, and I don't think he has any intention of running for president, but among all the candidates who have any plausible chance of gaining a major party nomination, is there anyone who's even close to Al Gore in terms of his interest in climate change?

              Note, I'm not even talking about his POLICY ideas related to climate change. I'm just talking about his INTEREST in it. No other candidate has even the slightest, tiniest shred of real interest in addressing climate change; no other candidate has any intent to actually do anything about it.

              With Gore, at least we'd have someone who has a longstanding genuine interest in the perils of climate change, so he might at least try to do something. With every other candidate I can think of, we'd get nothing but lip service, if we're lucky, because it will be somewhere around #97 on their list of priorities and they won't even attempt to do something.

              .

              •  There is no way out of climate change (2+ / 0-)

                Its a disaster whose time has come. My way of assessing the global warming aspect of climate change is to note when the ground freezes in mid coastal Maine. In the 1990's that was about the time school started in September. A couple of decades later its almost November  no frost let alone frozen ground and I may have to go mow my lawn again.

                Sea level rise that will require 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 and their suburbs which can't be saved by levees or seawalls or barrier islands to have to move inland to somewhere in the  Appalachians.

                Opportunistic diseases, plague, pestilence, water shortages, saline soils, soil liquification, crop failures, resource wars, not to mention peak oil, exploding populations, resource wars, will all be here in the next few decades.

                The oceans and forests are already dying, fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, mudslide all add to the environmental impact and cost.

                Given all of that its not difficult to state the things that need to be done, finding a work around for the Republican obstruction and the climate change denial is another story.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:53:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You Know Better than the Scientists (2+ / 0-)

                  Yes, even though the consensus of climate scientists is that we still have years to change course from catastrophic climate change, you know better because you stare at the ground in mid-coastal Maine.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:02:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You misunderstand the consensus of scientists (5+ / 0-)

                    The consensus (what's in the IPCC report) is that IF greenhouse gas reductions are drastic and soon, then we may limit global warming to 2 degrees C.  

                    When the ground freezes in Maine is one of billions of data points that indicate the warming of the climate.  I could point out a dozen more just from my little corner of Georgia.  But that's not the point; it's not a single observation or a statistical sampling of them that is important, it is the ensemble average of all of them.  

                    We don't have years to correct the course of climate change, the next couple of decades are pretty well set.  The unknowns for the next couple of decades are:
                    -- when will the Arctic Ocean be ice free in summer?
                    -- when will China clean the sulfur out of their smokestack emissions?
                    -- when will the next strong El Nino come?

                    If the answer to any of these questions is sooner, rather than later, then expect another round of broken weather records indicative of climate change.  What the political debate now is about is whether atmospheric CO2 will peak in 2040, 2080, or some time in the next century.  

                    •  I Understand (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rbird, Kombema, radical simplicity

                      I understand the IPCC consensus. It doesn't say it's inevitable that

                      Sea level rise that will require 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 and their suburbs which can't be saved by levees or seawalls or barrier islands to have to move inland to somewhere in the  Appalachians.

                      We have years, few though they might be, to avoid that degree of change. Perhaps most important we have enough time before we lose the privilege of choices to avert some change which would be faster and worse.

                      So we cannot afford to just "lay back and enjoy it" or whatever purely fatalistic approach is advised in the post to which I replied. And we certainly can't disagree with the IPCC based on looking at our own backyard. That is nonsense, whether to decide we're past the point we can do anything about it as in that post, or whether to insist that the climate isn't changing as deniers have been obstructing us with for invaluable years and decades.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What sometimes gets neglected when we have years (0+ / 0-)

                        is how long it takes to move all our coastal infrastructure. It takes about 25 years to produce a master plan of what gets moved where when, and then another 25 years to actually do the work. That's presuming somebody manages to identify the funding and Republicans get voted out of office before they can deny everything.

                        As I write this I'm listening to Rachel Madow talking about New York Cities SLOSH map. For Hurricane Sandy they were able to calculate that they needed to build a wall eight and a half feet tall to keep the subways from flooding and the flooding came within three inches of topping it out.

                        Now shes talking about Roanoke Virginia and how we need to be retreating from the shorelines.  The phenomena that science studies and reports on gets acted on when there is a storm and a city floods.

                        She says Republicans object to climate change and global warming as left wing terms, they prefer recurant flooding.

                        She says North Carolina scientific studies project a sea level rise of one meter, but politicians decided that was too much to contemplate so they decided instead to consider a rise of one foot.

                        Now she is talking about how the flooding in Nebraska threatened its Nuke plants, and how that state has decided to study historic records not of climate change but rather of cyclical climate change and scientists don't want to lend credibility to that by participating in it.

                        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                        by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:15:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Armageddon (0+ / 0-)

                          When NYC is having storms that big regularly enough to justify the construction cost, the rest of the world will have hundreds of millions of desperate refugees, pushing into other desperate countries barely able now to feed, protect and control their current populations - mostly by force. Many of these countries have WMD and/or global terrorist franchises, and are embedded in a global infrastructure (manufacturing, energy, shipping, etc) barely able to protect itself in the customary climate.

                          While NYC is hiding behind 10 foot walls, lots of places in the world are going to go to war for survival.

                          It's not going to be "recurrent flooding". It's going to be armageddon.

                          That's why we must use the time we have to reduce and perhaps reverse the climate change, which would be universal. While other people are doing whatever they can to somewhat protect places now more vulnerable, especially the ones more strategically located closer to armageddon.

                          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                          by DocGonzo on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 12:43:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You have a good grasp on the big picture (0+ / 0-)

                      and there are some scientists like Hansen who don't think the costs of mediation should be the main drivers when it comes to whatever it takes to survive, but most of the seven billion people on this planet are in what I call supertanker mode, very hard to turn before we go aground and the die offs from consequences we are ill prepared to control begin to include us. I'm not holding my breath till China decides to clean up their smokestacks.

                      We actually created this situation on purpose and it says a lot about where we will end up. International energy corporations and the British Navy wanted to keep Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China and India from having access to the light sweet crude  of the Ottoman Empire,  that fueled battleships and modern Western Civilizations rapid expansion so we fought a couple of World Wide Resource Wars to keep them running on coal rather than crude.

                      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                      by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 02:12:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Sometimes comparing something enormous to... (8+ / 0-)

                    what you can personally touch and feel and relate to helps to see it more clearly.  

                    I would like to know what climate scientist you have read that seems so lackadaisical about having "Years to change course from catastrophic climate change".

                    What I have read indicates that based on the amount of carbon we have already harvested from the earth and the amount that we intend to continue harvesting with no reasonable strategy to significantly slow down, it is already too late.  

                    There is no plan to immediately significantly stop the harvesting of currently sequestered carbon from the earth.  There is no plan to adaquately stop the processing of that currently sequestered carbon from a relatively harmless (to the environment) carbon solid, liquid or gas contained deep within the earth for millions and millions of years into Co2 and other harmful chemicals and pumping out in the air, altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere for milliniums.  

                    Anything we can do at this point is simply aimed at mitigating these issues not preventing catastrophic consequences.  Miami is going to be under sealevel and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent that at this point.  There are islands with inhabitants that are going to disappear.  There are going to be more and more category 5 (and eventually 6) storms that they will kill thousands of people and destroy countless lives.  There will be more droughts and heat waves like in Australia where they had to make a new color scale for temperatures because the old one didn't go up high enough.  These are the results catastrophic climate change and it is only going to get worse.  Show me evidence that I am wrong about any of this.

                    Rktect pointed out how in just a couple decades, they can see the difference in his/her state; not with scientific analysis or high tech equipment taking daily readings but by simply looking at their soil.  I have seen it as well remembering a spring thaw back where I grew up in the 70s where there was snow on the ground all winter long and then the last winter I lived there in the '98, snow didn't stick one time during that entire winter.  

                    So, when you say (in a somewhat dickish manner) that:

                    you know better because you stare at the ground in mid-coastal Maine.
                    My answer would be abso-fucking-lutely!  I do not agree with your statement that it is a consensus among climate scientists that we do not need to be in any big hurry but even if you are right, I'm going to make up my own mind.  I'd rather believe what I can see with my own two eyes and what I can feel with my hands.  It is the consensus of every Jewish rabbi that the God of Moses is the one and only true God.  I'll evaluate the evidence I see for myself and make a determination based on that thank you very much.  

                    I don't know where you are from or how old you are but maybe you should try to remember what winter was like when you were a kid and then think about what it like right now.  I remember when it used to snow on Halloween quite frequently and we always seemed to have at least one real snowfall before Thanksgiving.  Snow was fairly common to see in college football games.  I don't see that anymore.

                    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:47:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not What I Said (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      goodpractice, radical simplicity

                      I didn't say climate scientists said we don't need to be in any big hurry. I said they didn't say it was too late to avert disaster, in response to a post saying it's too late.

                      When I implied that climate scientists' consensus is worth considering, and some guy looking at their backyard isn't when it contradicts that consensus, I was being dickish but I wasn't being a dick. The assertion I rejected was inane, dangerous, and years ago already was the assertions of actual dicks who should shut up already.

                      There are many plans to slow and even reverse over time the climate change we can already roughly predict. In NYC alone, where I'm from and whose Hallowe'ens I can remember since the 1970s, we have implemented PLANYC2030, which cuts Greenhouse emissions by 30%. NYC is a big emitter (though already fairly efficient), and other cities are following suit through implementation.

                      There is of course already climate change, and more change baked into even the most optimistic improvements over the next decades. But in fact an uninhabitable Miami is not inescapable.

                      Unless we all decide it's inescapable and do nothing. No more certain path to defeat than to stop fighting.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:07:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The problem with the IPCC consensus (0+ / 0-)

                        is that to get a couple of thousand scientists to agree that climate change is anthropogenic, (caused predominately by humans), you have to take consensus on the lowest common denominator on which everyone can agree.

                        I consider science informative but not restrictive. You can sometimes perform simple experiments on your own which are enlightening including keeping diaries for multiple generations of one family living on one property.

                        Starting in 1972 through 2004 My mom recorded faithfully every day month after month year after year the dates of repeating weather phenomena.

                        I can compare my own observations to hers; whether there was Indian Summer and how long it lasted, what the harvest was like, when the first frost comes, when snow falls, when the ground freezes, when the snow melts in its January thaw, when mud time comes, whether the spring is particularly rainy, the arrival of ticks and their increase, the number of bees.

                        Of the half dozen IPCC scenarios from the last report we have exceeded six; including the worst case analysis and modeling for no mediation because all observations have exhibited surprising acceleration, a rate of increase which increases at an increasing rate, or in layman's terms is indicative of exponential growth.

                        Now if you can imagine Miami sinking beneath the waves over the next couple of decades, have a look at the elevations of the east coast up through Georgia and the Carolina's, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, Jersey, and Cape Cod.

                        Over the next half century we can expect the BosWash corridor population to double at least twice. If it doubles in place including its slurbs, all of that infrastructure may sink beneath the waves in a single day and night as was the case with Hurricane Sandy.

                        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                        by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:02:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I have a futurists slightly phenomenological bent (0+ / 0-)

                    so that my scientific observation is of the change in scientific predictions of annual sea level rise since 1990.

                    1990 1mm
                    1995 1mm
                    2000 2 mm
                    2005 3 mm
                    2010 5 mm (along the East Coast)
                    [2015] 8 mm projected (Florida)

                    If that was a linear rise its no big deal, In 1990 a rise of 110 mm by 2100 didn't scare the scientists of the IPCC.

                    Even in 2000 a rise of 200 mm or 8" didn't scare a Republican administration.

                    By 2010 low lying states like Florida and North Carolina were beginning to worry enough about their barrier islands and tourism that they did their own studies. 450 mm by 2100 is a foot and a half which is a little scary but in the range of solvable with sea walls.

                    Unfortunately its an exponential rise closely following the Fibonacci series. Run the numbers to 2050 which is only 37 years away and the whole of the east and gulf coast has a problem that sea walls and levees can't handle for cities or their slurbs. River valleys will flood as far inland as the foothills of the Appalachains

                    Now you can throw into that very simple model in which the rate of increase increases at an increasing rate a few tipping points that skew the data off the charts; methane hydrate releases, dying oceans and forests that when healthy act as carbon sinks, loss of polar sea ice affecting the albedo,  the die offs of bacteria in the North sea that are the largest source of organic oxygen production

                    Atmospheric Oxygen is one of those things that we might miss if it dropped to 40% of today's levels. We are presently at about 20% so if we get below 8% then its unlikely that any oxygen breathers survive.

                    A die off of the largest organic producer would be hard to mediate, phenomena which are so blatant that we can observe them without doing a scientific study get scary.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:45:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  US Republican Party is hardly the only obstacle (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  melo

                  If the US were to fix its act starting tomorrow, it still wouldn't be nearly enough. This requires international cooperation, which isn't going to come easily. . China recently has invested a tremendous amount of resources into building lots of coal plants, and is also trying to maintain its lead in solar manufacturing. Russia -- and especially the Russian oligarchy -- is getting fabulously wealthy of gas deposits. Lots of oil-exporting countries will also fight imposed change.

                  Therefore, the only real solution will be to switch the economics -- to make countries switch to carbon-neutral sources because they're cheaper...because their people will lead better lives.

                  Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                  by FischFry on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:49:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  and the inconvenient truth (0+ / 0-)

                  is that nothing will be done, because the correct target is the Oligarch, not cows and their farts, and there's not a politician alive who will dare to speak it.

                  don't always believe what you think

                  by claude on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:35:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But there is a way out of catastrophic climate (0+ / 0-)

                  change if we get our asses in gear. This kind of excuse for inaction from people who accept the science is just as pernicious as denial.

                  "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

                  by Mogolori on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:19:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse RI speaks on it every week (2+ / 0-)

                In the Senate.  He isn't a candidate, but should be.  Sen. Merkley (OR) is also good, and could be a candidate down the road.  

                Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

                by Mimikatz on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:07:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  All Fabulously Wealthy are Neoliberals? (6+ / 0-)

              Gore's private career has insisteed on government forcing businesses to use energy more expensively (at least at first) to cut emissions for longterm survival, with any profit only incidental to the survival. Everyone who leaves politics from as high and as young as he was has gotten "fabulously wealthy" with few exceptions, including Jimmy Carter. This is a man who directly helped invent the Internet that remade the world economy and industries while he was in the White House, and was forced from politics while extremely popular due to insights in tech and environment.

              You're going to have to give more evidence and logic for calling Gore "neoliberal" than just his bank account. Starting with his actions.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:23:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Comment I Replied To Suggested (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MPociask

                that Gore has been acting altruistically since leaving politics. The fact that he has made many millions suggests otherwise. This notion that government must "partner" with business is the core of neoliberal thought. What it really is, however, is a justification for corruption and greed. That is the Al Gore I remember from the 90s, same as Bill Clinton. In Gore's defense, nearly everyone still thought neoliberalism was hip in the 90s. Now we know better. If Gore has changed and now recognizes that Corporatism only benefits the SuperRich (the "savvy businessmen"), his post-poltics actions don't show it. Neither does his silence regarding Obama's abysmal environmental performance.

                •  No It Didn't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  radical simplicity

                  It said that Gore's reasons aren't the same as Cruz's:

                  Unless you believe that the past twelve years or so he was educating the world about catastrophic climate change for the same reasons that Ted Cruz went pheasant hunting in Iowa.

                  That doesn't suggest altruism, though it does suggest something other than exclusively personal ambition. At any rate it certainly doesn't exclude making a lot of money for doing the right thing.

                  The core of neoliberal thought is that government must always yield to business, not "partner" with it unless the partnership is predatory by business.

                  Gore has changed, in that his electoral victory was thwarted by corporate interests who also are the biggest polluters. He has accepted that business methods for averting climate change are more effective than merely having government interfere with business.

                  Look, you're wrong about what neoliberalism is, wrong about what the comment you replied to said, wrong about how Gore operates. It's obvious that you've got an agenda that's casting your experience of these things, probably consistent with a username like "socialismorbarbarism".

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:07:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, the problem with Al Gore is that he (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RF, socialismorbarbarism

              is a horribly tainted messenger.

              Insofar as whenever he was in power, or running for POTUS in 2000, he was essentially a Clinton/Obama clone on the issues.

              So it's nice that now that he's freed from any responsibility that he's veered left.   But there is no indication that that's anything but a ploy for publicity and/or relevance from the very progressives that he once so aggressively spurned.

              •  Al Gore is a problem solver. He is not into all (4+ / 0-)

                this for glory.  He is the reason that the internet was funded by congress.  He has been forward looking ever since a certain professor introduced him to the global warming issue many years ago.

                Clinton has him to thank for the inernet boom of the 90s that made him an extremely popular president.

                I hate to see all this Gore bashing.  it is mostly because he is wealthy?

                •  Basically throwing the 2000 election did it for me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MDhome

                  that put the country in a hole we may never get out of.

                •  Gore is sui generis (5+ / 0-)

                  He doesn't fit easily into any box. That's why people bash him.

                  Also because he's too good at what he does. It's not that he acts superior, or pretends to be superior--he IS superior, and he doesn't dumb it down to make people feel better. And that's the one unforgivable sin. It absolutely infuriates people (both on the left and the right), because they want to be pandered to and have their preconceived notions reinforced, not challenged.

                  Gore has done good work inside a very broken system. This is  because he has a quality very rare among politicians: profound foresight. He sees the key issues long before others are even aware of them, and he sees them whole and entire, while others are still groping around trying to get their bearings. Then once he sees the issues, he attacks them with all his might, gathers all the information he can on them, and tries to find solutions to these fundamentally new problems where no one has any idea what to do.

                  Gore's work on the Internet is enough by itself to put him in the highest rank of American statesmen/women.

                  That that same man also foresaw the threat of climate change and spent decades trying to figure out how to systematically reconfigure our entire economic and political system to meet that challenge, puts him in the highest rank of world statesmen/women.

                  While all the liberal Boomer economists are imagining that all we need to do is return to the postwar economic consensus (bring back manufacturing, buy American), Gore is looking far ahead to much more fundamental issues, investigating the impact of technology and mechanization on labor and capital and trying to figure out what work and manufacturing will become in a world where 3D printers can spit out whatever goods people need. This is a revolutionary change that will be upon us before we know it and alter every aspect of our lives, and very few people, besides a few tech experts, are even thinking about it. Except for Gore.

                  Isiah Berlin said of FDR that he "was one of the few statesmen in the twentieth or any other century who seemed to have no fear at all of the future." Gore also has that quality.

                  Where others look back with nostalgia for what was, Gore looks forward, always forward, and always without fear, always believing that the American people--and the people of the world--can meet the challenge.

                  That is what a leader is.

                  "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

                  by limpidglass on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Beautifully said. (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rainmanjr, Dave925, ORDem, melo, flevitan

                    I wish the time for recommending had not expired.  I've heard people blow Gore off as a "policy wonk."  To me, there is no higher compliment.  He has vision, and he cares, and he works at it.  I love this guy.  If he runs, I'll work full time to help, any way I can.

                    Why on earth does he need Hillary Clinton's permission to do anything???

                    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

                    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:19:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I fear a Gore run. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      claude

                      While I love the man and his vision, and know that he won the popular vote in 2000, it was a too narrow win and he gave up before a single recount had actually taken place.  I think he serves us better from outside govt as a man who puts pressure on the President to act.  Therefore, I favor that he not run.

                      "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                      by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:18:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's not even true (4+ / 0-)

                        The Supreme Court stopped the recount that was in progress.

                        He didn't "give up".  He went to the Supreme Court to fight his case and lost.

                        The Supreme Court sold out, betrayed us, the craven assholes.

                        But what do you do after the Supreme Court says no?

                        I suppose he could have marched in the street, staged a coup, and I would have loved him to do it, but it wasn't going to happen no matter who was in that position.

                      •  He "gave up"? (0+ / 0-)

                        What on earth?  Are you not aware of this very recent history (in which case you should study up on it) or are you trying to rewrite history (in which case I'll know simply to ignore your comments)?  

                        "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

                        by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:25:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No recount had gotten complete before SC (0+ / 0-)

                          Gore wanted another 4 counties to be recounted, by hand, so Bush sued to get a verifiable method of judging those ballots.  That's when it went to the SC so no actual recounts had been completed before the decision.  After the decision it would have been pointless, yes, so Gore conceded.  If Gore hadn't requested the additional 4 counties then a recount would have been finished but, most likely, so would Gore as he was behind in those counties.  He asked for the additional 4 because it's likely he wasn't behind in the entire state.

                          "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

                          by rainmanjr on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:43:38 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  What? (5+ / 0-)

                Do you know what he's been doing for the past 14 years?

                You think he's been sitting on his ass polishing his image?

                He's not running for office, he's promoting bold action on climate change.

                A man doesn't spend 14 years on ONE issue, an issue he has been passionate about for decades, to win anyone's vote.

                It's what he wants to do.

                No matter what you feel about Al Gore, your comment has no basis in fact or reality.

            •  I Believe Al Gore Has Become Fabulously Wealthy (0+ / 0-)

              Thanks to Al-Jazeera.

              •  Fabulsly wealthy due to BigOil (Qatari oil money) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep

                Prior to sale of Current, VP Gore had criticized US media corporations for taking money from BigOil.

                Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

                by PatriciaVa on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:57:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  he has not made one dime from climate change (4+ / 0-)

              Every penny he has made from his climate change-related activities (book/movie sales, his work in sustainable investment) has been donated to the nonprofit organization he founded to fight climate change. He's not battling climate change to make money. End of story.

              And please don't continue bleating "But he's profiteering!" as if I had not said anything.

              Facts and nuance do matter, and considerably more than blanket claims that someone doesn't comport with your particular ideology.

              "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

              by limpidglass on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:55:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My Ideology Isn't the Issue: Gore's Is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                goodpractice

                The diarist hopes for an Al Gore candidacy. I think Gore is a neoliberal and I do not believe that philosophy is compatible with meaningfully addressing AGW. A commenter above defended Gore by saying that, since leaving politics, he has become even more Corporatist in his views. That is no endorsement to me. If you think Al Gore is not a neoliberal, that's fine but I would like some evidence. If you agree Gore is a neoliberal and you think that philosophy will adequately address AGW, that's fine too but, again, I see no evidence to support that view. In fact, the neoliberalism Obama adheres to last year resulted in the greatest amount of carbon ever going into the atmosphere. That is failure by any objective measure.

                I'm glad you posted the Politico article. I would be thrilled if it turns out that Gore has now eschews the Corporatist approach to AGW that Obama embraces. The evidence, so far, is contrary. If the evidence is otherwise, I will happily change my opinion.

                As for Gore personally, I like him. I always have. And I absolutely agree that AGW should be the predominant issue of our time. And, yes, raising a conversation is a start. But we are long past the time for a beginning. And if the end result is just more "corporate partnerships" and incremental changes, that simply will not work. Neoliberalism's florid failures under Obama and Clinton have proved that. And that is the bottom line. It's not a matter of philosophy; it's a question of reality. The planet doesn't give a shit about our philosophies. We need a solution and we need it now. Tick tick tick.

            •  Wealth is a disqualifier? (4+ / 0-)

              Silly.
              Gore may not be what you are looking for but he has correct w.r.t. AGW/Climate change and energy policy since well before most accepted that AGW was happening.

              What were you writing about climate change in 1992?

              Here's Al's blog:
              http://blog.algore.com/
              Here's what hard core climate scientists have to say about Inconvenient Truth
              http://www.realclimate.org/...
              Summary:
              "For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance."

            •  Gore has done more than any human to raise (0+ / 0-)

              awareness of human caused climate change.  It sounds like many of you don't know where he has been and what he has been doing since 2000.  I saw him in August for several days.  His organization just did "24 Hours of Reality" which set world records for internet hits every year for the last several years.

              His Climate Reality Project trains leaders all over the world, thousands of them several times per year to spread the truth about anthropogenic global warming.  He works with Obama's Organizing for Action and any organization willing to fight for clean energy.

              I would vote for him in a heartbeat.  I think that he'd have a lot less issues running than Hillary.  Although, he's supposedly said that he won't run if she does.  According to a top news agency rep., he's stated that he will consider a run if Hillary elects not to do so.

            •  "Fabulously wealthy," and yet Al Gore... (0+ / 0-)

              ...is the second most-hated unelected individual by the wrong-wing (after Hillary, who is nowhere near as "fabulously wealthy"). That should tell US something, like someone who knows how to "make" money having the cunning to remove much of it from the .1%! Aside from the .1%, who would shed a tear and not be diagnosed with Tea-Bagger Madness?

        •  Seriously? (14+ / 0-)

          Just based on his statement here and his statements on XL and other issues, he is NOT in the LEAST likely to continue Obama's policies.

          No fucking chance in fucking hell.

          Al Gore Blasts Obama On Climate Change For Failing To Take 'Bold Action'
          Al Gore: Obama needs to get ‘serious’ on climate

          Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

          Gore Criticizes Obama for Record on Climate

          Former Vice President Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama as lacking leadership on climate change in a magazine essay published online Wednesday, saying his policies had been little more effective than those of President George W. Bush.

          . . .

          Mr. Gore said that in the face of well-financed attacks from fossil fuel industries and denial and delay from Republicans in Congress, Mr. Obama had failed to act decisively to alter the nation’s policies on climate change and energy.

          Keystone Pipeline Is an “Atrocity”
          Former Vice President Al Gore challenged Americans today to make a complete shift to Earth-friendly energy sources in the next decade, saying the nation's "dangerous overreliance on carbon-based fuel" is at the core of its economic, environmental and national security problems.

          "I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years," Gore said, speaking from Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., where he called for a full switch to solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.

          This was in 2008.

          In short YES you are mistaken.

          •  Thanks For Posting (0+ / 0-)

            I hope you're right.

          •  Al Gore has been trashed exactly because of this. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fiona West, aseth, julesrules39

            It would be funny if it weren't sad. Gore has been subjected to an avalanche of lies and disdain that (even) some on the left (for reasons i can't fathom) seem to buy into.

            •  Since You Are Puzzled I'll Add This (0+ / 0-)

              It isn't personal. I like Al Gore. And I recognize that he was in the vanguard of naming AGW as a dire threat. I loved his movie.

              The issue is how to address AGW. I believe that the evidence demonstrates unequivocally that neoliberalism/corporatism cannot provide the requisite solutions. The People acting through our Government must bring Big Business to heel and enact the necessary policies. The time for begging and partnering is gone. Obama has done exactly the opposite. While the Politico piece shows some criticism, it is unclear just what Gore objects to in Obama's polices. Where does Gore stand on fracking, for instance? Would Gore have EPA enact real carbon regulations, as Obama refuses? Does Gore object to the massive deepwater drilling Obama has approved? It is easy to criticize Obama vaguely for not taking AGW serious enough but it is simply unclear what Gore wants Obama to do differently or what PResident Gore would do instead.

              The question raised is whether Al Gore holds Corporatist views like Obama and the Clintons that are -- I believe -- incompatible with the drastic changes AGW demands. Gore's history says yes. And one of Gore's defenders above said Gore is even more Corporatist now than he was while in politics. That is very alarming. I remain open to new evidence. But I'm not buying another pig in a poke.

              •  really? (6+ / 0-)

                You claim to be open to new evidence but you're also ignoring that someone already posted a comment with several links With Gore making very specific criticisms including what should be done differently. If you care enough to Google you'll find much more of the same. According to your own  comment you should be listening to Gore now because he has frequently criticized Obama just as you asked.

                Gore is also honest enough to admit what Obama has done right on climate. You might consider his example.

                •  I read the Politico article (0+ / 0-)

                  And I addressed it.

                  Incidentally, since the point is to demonstrate that Gore has been criticizing Obama, this is telling:

                  Gore is also honest enough to admit what Obama has done right on climate.
                  This is Obama's record: More atmospheric carbon last year than any year in human history. More deepwater drilling than Bush, despite the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history in the Gulf. Opening the Arctic to drilling. An explosion of fracking thoughout the country. Shutting down studies showing how dangerous fracking is. A new DOE director nicknamed Dr. Frackenstein. Firing the Texas EPA Administrator who said something mean about Big Oil. Prohibiting EPA from enacting real carbon regulations as the Supreme Court specifically empowered EPA to do. Turning the United States into the New Saudi Arabia just as AGW manifests its calamities.

                  It's a real hit parade.

                  •  addressed it? (3+ / 0-)

                    Making a dismissive comment is not addressing  it. You don't have to "hope" the other person is right. Gore has criticized Obama and it was false to suggest otherwise.

                    Your propagandist method of repeating the usual laundry list of complaints without naming a single action Obama has taken to slow climate change is fundamentally dishonest. Since epa is now moving forward with carbon regulation with Obamas support you should remove that item from your talking points. It's a lie at this point.
                    Your comment about carbon levels is cute but I'm already aware that US emissions are at their lowest level in 17 years.

                •  Willinois is right, as usual. One can't enter the (0+ / 0-)

                  White House and wave a magic wand to end all fossil fuel use today any more than they could have five years ago.  Obama gets fought tooth and nail for executive actions that he can take.  You are all aware that some consider the Republicans on the Energy & Commerce Committee to be pretty much owned by oil, gas or coal?

                  The only way to transition to clean energy will be cost parity which Gore talks about and is fighting for every day.  Energy companies are businesses.  They don't care about your ideology or politics, only profit.

                  For the record, Obama has tried and actually reduced US GHG emissions (for the first time in 100 years) considerably while having a congress that fights his every move.  If you are going to be critical, at least, be fair.

              •  I would suggest you check out his (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VL Baker, aseth

                views rather than harkening back to stuff he said 15 years ago while running for office led by folks who didn't want him to talk about the environment.

                I started to do a bunch of research for you, but frankly I think if you're interested in climate change efforts and you aren't sure about Al Gore or the organizations he's involved with you can google, check out his websites, etc.

                I don't know why anyone thinks he's "more corporatist than before" but frankly I don't even know what that means in this context.

                He's not running for anything and has never signaled he's running for anything that I am aware of, although who knows.  

                But what he's said about regulations makes it pretty clear that he wouldn't hold back on regulating corporate industry.  He proposed a green grid in 10 years - back in 2008 - that can't be accomplished without pretty much backing startups and pushing polluting corporations out.

                Not exactly an "all of the above, expand oil drilling" policy.

                That can't be accomplished without an all-out land-on-the-moon type program, which he has been talking about for a long time.  

                If anyone asked me who would be the best environmental president, hands down Al Gore.  

              •  I can't imagine why anyone would "defend" Gore by (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aseth, VL Baker

                claiming he's more corporate now than when he was  VP. I can't think of anything he's done recently that would support that.

                On the other hand, it's impossible to answer your questions about whether Gore is a neoliberal/corporatist, because those terms are used so broadly and vaguely that I have no flipping idea where you in particular draw the lines.

                Gore is not a socialist.  Is that your criteria?  If so, we're doomed, because it'll be more than 10 years before open socialists are winning the presidency in this country, and we can't wait.  We HAVE to make significant progress -- both in fighting global warming and in challenging the power of massive corporations -- in this crucial decade.

                On the other hand, as noted in VL's diary, Gore recently said this:

                “Now we have, on the books of the large, public multinational energy companies, $7 trillion of subprime carbon assets,” he said. “Their valuation is based on an assumption that is even more ridiculous and absurd than the assumption that these people that couldn’t make a downpayment or monthly payments were good risks for home mortgages. The assumption is that those $7 trillion can be sold and burned.”

                “They will not be sold and burned. They cannot be sold and burned.”

                So he's saying that we must prevent corporations from getting any profit from $7 trillion in  lucrative property.  He's saying that their property rights are toast, their property rights are worth bupkus, because the sale and burning of subprime carbon assets is intolerably destructive to the general welfare of all humanity and all other life on Earth.

                So it has to be prevented.  And he's one of the people who intend to do the preventing.

                This is not a neoliberal perspective.

                This is a perspective that assumes that We the People must bring Big Business to heel and enact the necessary policies to keep them from damaging the biosphere irreparably.

                This is not where Al Gore started. It's where he's come to via taking GCC seriously.  I'm sure he has some different views than you do, and certainly different language.  He probably talks about government partnering with business in developing sustainable energy and his beloved "smart grid," sustainable agriculture, etc.  You seem to take the term "partnering" as clear proof of fawning subservience to the interests of the Uber-Rich.

                So you'd probably find listening to Gore's views to be a bit of a rocky road.  But do keep this in mind:  He's the first and only person ever elected to high office in the US, that I know of, who chooses to stand up in public and tell the oil industry that they are going to swallow a $7 trillion loss, and if they don't like it, that's just too freaking bad.

                It's a start.

                --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

                by Fiona West on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 04:41:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Amen, delphine. Anyone who thinks Gore doesn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kickbass

            put transitioning to clean energy across the planet, does not know WTF they are talking about ...

          •  Thanks for that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VL Baker

            Though I don't blame Obama for the lack of real progress in switching to renewable energy (lots of good progress has been made but it's not enough).  I mostly blame the deniers and mouthpieces in Congress that have blocked funding for real progress to take place.  Obama's done just about everything he could with Executive Orders.  The public allowed the deniers to make these blocks, as well, as even the younger generations are ambivalent to climate disaster.  Jobs has been the demand but Congress has been all about blocking those along with healthcare.  I think Obama's Presidency has been historic, achieving many historic things, but stymied and unfinished.
            Al would be much more forceful and strident on renewables but he would still need funds from the House.  I don't believe he would have been anymore successful in getting those bills passed/funded than Obama.  Unless we change the House, in 2014, I don't see that as changing either.  If we do change it then I think Obama will impress a lot of scientists in his last 2 years.

            "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

            by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VL Baker

          He is not just like Obama and Clinton on the environment.  If you track down what he's been up to in detail his words and actions speak for themselves.

      •  I Agree VL (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VL Baker, Kentucky DeanDemocrat
        Gore could very well be the best Presidential Candidate in 2016. I'd vote for him.
        No More Fracking and No More Pipeline Expansions!
        Stop Tar Sands!

        NO Tar Sands! Mountaintop Removal, Gas Fracking, Strip And Longwall Mining,

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:24:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On the biggest issues. he'd be the best (0+ / 0-)

        But, he's a not a very good political candidate.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:30:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately very true. (0+ / 0-)

          I would vote for him, just as I did in 2000 (though I wanted to vote for Nader and didn't because of how close it was going to be), but he wouldn't fire up our base and there's a lot of youth vote that doesn't put climate as a number 1, 2 or 3 issue.  I think Gore is better for us outside the govt.

          "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

          by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:43:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ORDem

          isn't the greatest candidate either.

          Neither have been particularly charismatic in the past.

          If the press would back off with the stupid attacks (on both of them), we'd perhaps have a better idea of what they're about.

          I don't have a handle on Hillary, where she stands, what she would do.  She's a bit to the center/right for me, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

          On the other hand, they both have bigger senses of humor than anyone seems to want to admit.

          Gore/Clinton, wouldn't that be a hoot.

      •  He won the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        delphine, VL Baker

        Presidency last time only to be ripped off by the Supremes and Florida cheating, but had too much class to take it to court. I would vote for him in a nano-second.

        "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between" Oscar Wilde

        by angry hopeful liberal on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:14:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently neither you nor anyone else (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ORDem

        commenting on this diary read the very long (many pages) article about the Gore family some years back in the NYT.  He never wanted to be President in the first place was the contention (was upholding is parents' expectations), and no one in his family was happy about the idea, either. His marriage broke up after the campaign, and the take home message was that everyone involved was much happier doing what they are doing now.  It left no thought whatsoever that he would try to run for elective office again.

        •  Al 'n' Tipper didn't split up until June 2010 (0+ / 0-)

          My family and I attended a presentation by both Gores at the Kennedy Center the night before the 2006 elections that returned the House and Senate to Democratic control. Al did his condensed Inconvenient Truth; I forget what her talk (a conversation with an interlocutor, I think) was about. But they seemed as united a couple as ever; it was quite an act if they were already at odds, and for what purpose such an act would have been performed, I can't imagine.

          •  I didn't mean to imply that (0+ / 0-)

            they broke up immediately after the campaign.

            Many couples stay together and put on an "act" when they know the marriage is over.  The right time to end it has not come.  I think a public presentation would be the absolutely last place they'd reveal marriage problems by body language, demeanor, etc.

            •  OK then. (0+ / 0-)

              I myself, after 20 years of marriage, can't imagine being in that "knowing it's over" place, although I concede some couples have arrived there. Still, 10 years is a long time to keep it up publicly (assuming, of course, that if Gore had become president, the marriage would have survived at least as long). And there was no particular pressure for them to put on a dual presentation - rather than, say, individual ones months apart - 7 years ago at the Kennedy Center. I'm merely saying that perhaps the breakup was genuinely more recent.

    •  While Campaigning (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisVoter

      Presidential campaigns are run against the president being succeeded, not against the other candidates (even Gore did that). Presidential primary campaigns to succeed an incumbent popular with one's party are run on the coattails of that incumbend (Gore's failure to do so in 2000 helped him lose the necessary margin of victory).

      Gore's got 3 years if he's running. Now is the time to praise what good Obama's done, without praising what bad he's allowed or promoted. Later will be time to run against Obama's failures and shortcomings.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:16:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I listen to Al Gore when he's ... (5+ / 0-)

      ... bringing information to my attention, where I can judge the merit and importance of the information for myself ...

      ... but he's not my go-to guy for advice on how to move the fight against the Climate Suicide Pact forward.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:22:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A whole host of (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kickbass, aseth, GypsyT, julesrules39

        uninformed people posting here.  

        Here is some information about how he's moving the fight forward:

        http://climaterealityproject.org/

        Do some research before saying he's not doing anything.

        •  Do some re-reading if you can't ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          ... grasp the meaning of words in one go.

          he's not my go-to guy for advice on how to move the fight against the Climate Suicide Pact forward"
          is not equal to
          he's not doing anything
          ... so a critique of the latter is a non sequitur as a reply to the former.

          As far as your demand that I refrain from posting without doing research, I'll gladly stack the research represented in The Sunday Train against the research in: The United States Congress - A Rant

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:43:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No need (0+ / 0-)

            to get touchy.

            You imply that he doesn't have ideas to move the fight forward.

            I linked to what he's doing to move the fight forward.

            •  'You imply that' meaning you admit I didn't say it (0+ / 0-)

              ... so you elected to respond to what you read in, rather than to what I actually wrote.

              And I'll happily specify the minutes of research required to find the link to Al gore's site be included on the balance scale as you lecture me regarding doing research.

              Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

              by BruceMcF on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:01:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me tell you what he and his HUGE team r doing (0+ / 0-)

                Letting people know that climate change is real, happening now, caused by humans and costing us more than if we didn't ignore the reality that is right in front of us.

                If you've missed it, check out Climate Reality Project website and review the many videos he's produced on the Cost of Carbon.

                His number one priority has been to raise awareness of climate change and what's being done about it as well as what we need to do ... put a tax on carbon as was done in British Columbia where they have the lowest ghg emissions and taxes in all of Canada.

    •  Is he ignoring it? (0+ / 0-)

      I thought he's talking about the private sector, which basically gets its policies tailor-made for it by most countries.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:28:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good lines, but. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl

      Very twitter friendly.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:58:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julesrules39

      Gore has criticized Obama - relatively gently except for when he was talking abou Keystone XL.

      “I hope that he’ll get moving on to follow up on the wonderful pledges he made in his inaugural speech earlier this year and then soon after in his State of the Union,” Gore said. “Great words. We need great actions now.”
      Gore got more fiery when talking about the atrocity that Keystone is.
    •  Gore has criticized Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delphine, VL Baker

      quite a bit especially on his climate policy

    •  Obama is doing (0+ / 0-)

      pretty much the only thing anybody is doing, and personally, I'm pretty impressed.  Why don't we work to get congressional Democrats to at least mention the word "climate" once in a while?  Make Gore the Democratic nominee, and welcome back at least another four years of Republican rule.  Kiss the climate, and a lot of other things, goodbye.

      A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

      by Dinclusin on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:27:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remember Gore's 2012 Dem Convention Speech? (0+ / 0-)

      Neither do I.  As i recall, he wasn't a speaker at the last convention because he was angry with Obama's lack of leadership in environmental areas.  They've been very cool to each other.  Gore would go far beyond Obama, and make the case that needs to be made.

      There is no election that has had more consequence in the history of the world than the 2000 US presidential election. Had the actual results been faithfully upheld, there would probably have been no 9/11 catastrophe, no Iraq War, no Afghanistan war, a still improving fiscal balance (maybe by now the debt would already be gone), the growing disparity between rich & poor would probably have been reversed, we'd likely have stronger alliances around the world, we would've finally taken the action needed to avert one of the worst existential disasters this world has ever faced (environmental degradation, climate change, mass extinction), & our democracy would still be strong. Instead we are collapsing environmentally & fiscally, & headed for a civil war & perhaps a world war, all due to the insane policies & actions of the Bush presidency and Congressional Fascists.

      Gore is insightful.  He will be hailed by future survivors of the environmental catastrophe he vainly warned us about as the one who tried to turn us around and save us from our greedy, selfish, short-sighted, narrow-minded ways.  And this generation from Reagan to Bush to Boehner to Koch will be condemned as the generation that brought America & the world down, when it had the chance to save the world simply by heeding & acting upon Gore's warnings.

      Will Gore run in 2016?  I hope so.  But he has to do a lot better at picking his VP this time.  Al Gore/Elizabeth Warren would be one of the best tickets ever.

  •  I remember when Gore said that the oceans (44+ / 0-)

    are a toilet that doesn't flush.  This is such a perfect metaphor.

    We are indeed treating the environment as our private loo.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:16:42 AM PDT

  •  Im with VL - run, Al, run. We are no where (14+ / 0-)

    near making the right moves as a species re: climate change. If Gore were pres. we would make some of the right moves sooner.

  •  I'd love to see Gore re-installed in the WH (15+ / 0-)

    After all, we elected him once and this would right one of history's most egregious wrongs.  

    Whether he would have the stomach for the rough and tumble of today's vicious political reality, I dunno.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

    •  Too late (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goodpractice

      'lil georgie and evil dickie did too much damage. We'll never recover from that, it's irreversible

      •  We Could Move Beyond (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD, WisVoter

        It's not too late to move beyond the Bush/Cheney damage. It might take generations, we might always carry the scar tissue (as we do slavery's, and probably Vietnam's). But our government is designed to be reborn when the people decide so, given the chance every two-four-six years.

        An electorate can earn the rebirth, and produces leaders who can manifest it.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:25:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly true. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "When you think about the money spent/on defense by the government/& the weapons of destruction we've built/we're so sure that we need/then you think of the millions that money could feed/How long?" J Browne

        by rainmanjr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:47:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No. Put him at the head of a movement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisVoter

      to clean house and re-imagine our democracy. our republic. our representative government. however you want to put it.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Secretary of Energy? Head of the EPA? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        Probably couldn't get approved for either position through the Senate, though in those positions he'd be able to direct policy.

        •  That would be nice, though I'm thinking (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          at the head of the movement to get money--at least big money--out of politics, and figure out a way legally to do that.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 07:06:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  don't send anyone good into the WH as it now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WisVoter

      stands. That place is a black hole of corruption at the moment. Anybody who goes in there isn't coming out again the same person. The best they can expect, if they're very lucky, they'll a)come out, and b) be able to recover who they were before, a la Van Jones (but it sure took him a while, didn't it?)

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:30:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Gore was in the WH, won it by # of votes, (0+ / 0-)

        but still lost the presidency to Goerge W. Bush.  Rather than drinking himself to death watching dubya, he dedicated himself to saving the planet.  I can think of far worse candidates for the next president.

        He makes Bachmann, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Jeb Bush and need I even say Rand Paul look like doggie doody.  And, if you wash Hillary's laundry, who knows ...

  •  seems like the chambers of Congress are the sewer (9+ / 0-)
    Sen. Tom Coburn was clear Monday about certain Democrats he doesn’t get along with, calling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an “absoulte a—hole,” according to a report.
    “There’s no comity with Harry Reid (D-Nev.). I think he’s an absolute a—hole,” he said.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:44:37 AM PDT

  •  And, of course, the atmosphere is a sewer (8+ / 0-)

    ...filled with human waste.

    I had an environmentalist buddy who described it that way. But he was fine with that; it was inevitable. The key he said, was a matter of concentration, and a loss of planetary air scrubbers like rain forests. He'd say:

    "The solution to pollution is dilution."


    __________________
    "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
            -- Joshua, aka WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) automated nuclear-launch super-computer. "War Games," 1983.

    by Pluto on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

  •  as a plumber...I must point out... (34+ / 0-)

    we treat sewers nicer than the atmosphere...even have strict laws against dumping chemicals and such into them...we only dump in what we can process at the other end.

    We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

    by Glen The Plumber on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

  •  Al Gore for President! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, aseth, mightymouse, Willinois

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:16:11 AM PDT

  •  With regard to Gore's stand on income inequality: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatriciaVa, ban nock

    Does Gore think that everyone's income and wealth should be limited, or only everyone but him and his elite friends?

    Regarding polluting the environment with carbon:
    Does Gore think that everyone should limit their carbon footprint, or only everyone but him and his elite friends?

    Sorry, but leadership begins with setting an example.  And I don't want to hear about this BS about "carbon credits", which is no more than a free-pass for the rich who want to continue to pollute the atmosphere without guilt or recrimination.

    •  Emphatically Agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrebLoc

      No one who is truly concerned about income and wealth inequality can simultaneously call for a REGRESSIVE tax on carbon (or cap and trade).  An energy tax will exacerbate the worst income inequality we've had since 1929.

      Furthermore, if one were really concerned about polluting the atmosphere, would one jet across the world to deliver speeches, when teleconferencing equipment is ubiquitous?

      Or is it OK for certain people to jet across the world to participate in conferences, but not OK for soccer Moms to drive an SUV to take their children to soccer practice.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:34:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What will not having an energy tax do? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jobobo, WisVoter

        How regressive is climate change?

        The problem is that Soccer Moms are driving their kids from Orange County to Soccer tournaments in Fresno.

        How about riding a bike to the local soccer field instead.

      •  Best not to look at individual tax as to being (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        julesrules39

        regressive or not but the totality of tax policy, including benefits provided.

        For example, having a carbon tax offset by a fixed rebate per person in totality is not regressive.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  On a carbon tax (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobobo, Roadbed Guy, WisVoter, Chas 981

      You can certainly structure one that is not regressive, with rebates etc.

    •  Carbon Credits Aren't Free (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobobo

      The point of carbon credits is that the atmosphere doesn't care who pollutes, only how much pollution total is emitted. And that pollution must have its costs internalized to the polluters, instead of externalized (and increased) to those who it damages.

      Buying and selling carbon credits is not a free pass. It is a sensible and mostly equitable way to limit pollution by internalizing its costs, using lots of current infrastructure and our culture, targeting the carbon reduction as the essential change.

      It would be more equitable if the credits were first allocated to each human equally, and traded as leases to aggregators to the open market, even increased as new children are born. Even more equitable as credits are assigned to carbon sinks (eg forests). A regime like that would be not only effective, but the greatest equity ever delivered in human history. But those are within the framework of carbon credit trading. If they are achievable, they are so within a carbon credit market.

      Or we can try some better way. Which is what, exactly?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that carbon credits are not a free pass (0+ / 0-)

        for the average person.  But they are indeed a free pass to the glutinous wealthy who waste energy without limit, and then pay some carbon credits which in a year may deplete these pigs of 0.01% of their yearly accumulation of wealth.

        •  Not a Free Pass (0+ / 0-)

          No, they are not a free pass to anyone. They have been cheap because there hasn't been a requirement the polluters buy them, so no demand, and because there's no cap there's an unlimited supply. Polluters bought them only to greenwash because they're cheap. It might as well not have been done.

          Actual cap & trade makes the credits less expensive than polluting, so they buy the credits. It's not designed to make them bleed if the cap isn't met by all the polluters. A legitimate cap is the amount that can be accommodated by the environment, which is a fairly large amount - large enough that a meaningful market can function to assign costs. Meanwhile for many it costs less to reduce pollution than even the available credits cost, so they can pay to reduce which leaves credits for sale.

          It's not a traditional government mandate which just forces people to each do specifically what the government orders. Instead it more directly models the environment's pollution limit, which doesn't care what specific people do so long as the total isn't exceeded. The work to enforce it is put onto the polluters and their agents in the market, rather than on the government, except to police the exchange for fraud and the polluters for exceeding their credits.

          This is a system that works. If we want to slam polluters with extra fines, perhaps limiting the total credits they can apply, that sounds great too -and it can be added to the credits regime. Hell, if we want to execute polluters above a certain amount of either total income, or because they're also polluting rivers, or whatever, that's OK, if it passes the legislature. But the quota can be enforced through the market, and policed in a straightforward way.

          Which is the best and fastest way to protect the environment, and all of us in it.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:10:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  OOh. (0+ / 0-)

      Calling a liberal an "elitist."  That's a brand new Republican talking point, isn't it?

      "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:31:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  2016? No. Just ... no. Mincemeat would be made. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    And besides, is Nader even available to fuck it all up again?

    The Gore love affair makes me chuckle.  NAFTA anyone?

    Hey, personally I don't care about that issue, but given the Hillary-hatred among many here, some selective memory seems to be in play.

    •  NAFTA? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      So Gore would lose in 2016 because of NAFTA? It and its worse successors don't seem to have done any harm to anyone who's run since, including Gore in 2000. I don't think NAFTA was even a good reason for Hilary losing to Obama either in the primaries or to among people on DKos.

      Nixon and Reagan each ran and lost before becoming landslide re-electees later. Why do you hate Gore, since it's not NAFTA?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:35:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Google website is very useful... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter

    ...to visualize trends over the last 20 years in greenhouse gas emissions by country and per-capita;

    http://www.google.com/..._

    Only Australia is worse than we are per capita and only China has surpassed us in total emissions recently.  Our total emissions are still increasing albeit at a slower rate and trending down however slowly per capita.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

  •  Anything and anybody that highlights (7+ / 0-)

    the issue of climate change is doing the world a service.  Whoever runs in 2016 let's hope that this issue takes center stage.  Let all of us voice our concerns about the issue so often and in so many places that politicians cannot ignore it.  Let's make the issue follow them around just like stink on shit!  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

    •  I don't see anyone on the horizon EXCEPT Al Gore (4+ / 0-)

      who will make climate change his front and center issue.

      I hope at least that he runs in primaries, because that will put focus on the issue and force Hillary (and any others) to articulate their positions.

      I don't know if Al Gore has the political skills to handle the kind of viper's nest that Washington politics has become.  And I'd rather not see a Cap-and-Trade system, but instead the kind of straight carbon tax that is then returned to the citizenry as a whole (doing away with the objection that corporations will pass increased costs on to the consumers).  However, I'd rather see Cap and Trade (second best) than no forceful tax-based system cutting down on carbon pollution.  Al Gore has a passion for taking on this issue.  At the very least I want him back in the political running so that his voice is heard.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 02:51:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Carbon Tax (5+ / 0-)

    I drove across the state this weekend.  There are a bunch of billboards attacking Kay Hagan for voting for a carbon tax.    The "grass roots" are gearing up for 2014.

    Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. ~ Frank Zappa ~

    by NCTim on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:56:27 AM PDT

    •  They are aggressive with the billboards ... (0+ / 0-)

      here in NC, aren't they?

      I assume it's the same groups that had the "King Obama" billboards up a year ago, or the hilarious ones with the bald eagle screaming "enough!"

      Apparently they don't realize that the Big Bad Gov't helps keep that bald eagle from going extinct ...

      ‎"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

      by jobobo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:36:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Am Not Big On Kay Hagan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jobobo

        Because she cosponsored a bill to allow corporations to repatriate money without paying taxes, she tends to go soft on conservative hot button issues and her office does not answer the phone.

        The billboards helped.  I can get behind her if she stays strong on environmental stewardship.

        Only saw the Bald Eagle billboard in GA.  Billboard alley on I95 from SC line until after Outletpoolza.

        Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. ~ Frank Zappa ~

        by NCTim on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:42:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I grew up in Indiana (0+ / 0-)

          Where my Senate choices were Lugar (no dem running against him) or Evan Bayh.

          I'm quite used to holding my nose ...

          ‎"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

          by jobobo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:44:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why It's Good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      The polluter cartel that sponsors those billboards demonstrates just what a good idea is a carbon tax, or better yet a carbon market.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:36:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  think about driving less please (0+ / 0-)

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:39:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Do, plus (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisVoter

        I drive a Ford Focus.  31.5 MPG for the life of the car.

        Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. ~ Frank Zappa ~

        by NCTim on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:44:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is why liberals get a bad rep (0+ / 0-)

        You have no idea where NCTim was driving or why.  Condescension and self-righteousness will not save the world.  Please reconsider your approach.  

        •  I Don't Mind (0+ / 0-)

          I drove to that den of inequity, Asheville, to celebrate our wedding anniversary, look at the leaves and stop in Boone to visit Thing One.

          Asheville did not dissappoint.  Halloween weekend.  Keep Asheville weird.

          For the record, I ate meat, while there.  12 Bones Smokehouse, recommended.

          Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid. ~ Frank Zappa ~

          by NCTim on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:41:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  When Gore's footprint is only ten times as large (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatriciaVa

    as mine I'll listen to him, until then maybe he should be listening to me.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:00:53 AM PDT

    •  Your Effectiveness (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      howarddream

      Your effectiveness in reducing humanity's carbon footprint isn't even 1% of Gore's. Your footprint is far less justifiable.

      Meanwhile, he is listening to you (or others with your viewpoints who do more than comment on DKos), even if he likely doesn't agree.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:37:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  elitism BS (0+ / 0-)

        Guy is just a big polluter. When he stops destroying the planet I'll stop calling him a big piece of fail. Al Gore is the but of jokes out in the real world.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:42:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conservative BS (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kickbass, howarddream

          Al Gore certainly is elite in his effectiveness in saving the planet. You, though, are just run of the mill among those destroying it. You fail to comprehend that Gore's efficiency is high since his useful output is so high. You and your ilk are the actual threat to the planet.

          Al Gore is the butt of not-funny jokes out in the Conservative world, which is almost entirely imaginary. Except for your excessive pollution.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 11:00:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  First I get called liberal for asking someone to (0+ / 0-)

            drive less then I get called conservative for laughing at a polluter hero of yours, pox on all you rich entitled trustifarians.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 10:52:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're a Conservative (0+ / 0-)

              But I'm not a trustafarian - I've earned every penny of my money. You are a Conservative, or worse.

              You're certainly putting out far more pollution that Al Gore is measured in its effect in halting the Greenhouse.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm totally not a fan of Mr. Gore (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisVoter, Dianna, howarddream

          but I don't think that this is a fair criticism in the vein of the old truism that "you have to spend money to make money" (e.g., invest $$s in a business now for a payoff in the future).

          Similarly, if Mr. Gore's "extravagant" lifestyle ultimately ends up reducing global carbon levels significantly, then on balance it's worth it.

          •  what if they just ingrain the attitude that (0+ / 0-)

            conservation is for little people?

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 10:54:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Conservation is not going to get us out of (0+ / 0-)

              the mess we're now in.

              A fundamental change in how we as a society and planet do things is needed - if Al Gore and his "extravagant" lifestyle (e.g., flying all over the planet to advocate changed) is what it takes to spark that change, then it's a lack of conservation well left unconserved . . .

              Unfortunately he's too tainted of a messenger to achieve much towards that, plus many of his approaches are rather looney.  

      •  Thank you DocGonzo for stating the obvious. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        Al Gore flying around the world to sear awareness of climate change into the hearts, minds, budgets and policies of some he meets is far worth the carbon footprint price he's paying for future generations.

    •  You realize this is a Fox talking point, right? (8+ / 0-)

      It's clear that you feel very superior to everyone due to your (presumably) small carbon footprint.  Unfortunately, the planet continues to burn.  

      We need systemic change, not individual change.  Blaming the individual consumer is what the Koch bros do to avoid the blame themselves.  Please reconsider playing this game.  

    •  That's an old tired denier talking point (5+ / 0-)

      You see plastered all over any climate commentary on the web, how can anyone think this

  •  Unfortunately, Gore is Damaged Goods (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    very unfortunate indeed, for his AGW message is spot on.

    “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

    by ozsea1 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:09:37 AM PDT

  •  President Gore (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, forgore, smiley7, Dianna, GypsyT

    I would happily vote for Gore, more than for Hilary. I'd hope someone without Gore's demonstrated difficulty winning an election would run, but he'd be a better president than Hilary, and wouldn't be quite as dynastic. And he'd probably be a better president than anyone else I've heard, like the abominable Cuomo (also dynastic, and little but).

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:12:54 AM PDT

  •  He won't run. His gift is environmental activism (0+ / 0-)

    and I hope he remains that cause's Elder Statesman. He accomplishes a lot by virtue of his profile and money.

    "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying."Edward Snowden -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

  •  I knew that the fucking financial wizards (0+ / 0-)

    were in this up to their necks somehow.

    Decades later and we're still being fucked by the original Rockefeller, aka Standard Oil, and J.P. Morgan. Except their descendants seem even worse than they were.

    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:27:24 AM PDT

  •  Gore lost any real credibility long long long ago. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy

    IMO.  Remember folks, this place is nothing if it is not about opinion.  When I comment here it is always with the caveat, "IMO."

    If Gore were the teacher and I was the student in the back, right about now I would be putting my hand over my mouth and muttering "fullashiit,""fullashiit,""fullashiit,""fullashiit."

    Gore is just riding the obvious to in some way boost his own score.  He continues to disappoint.

    •  Where's the beef? IMO=nothing. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dianna, Keone Michaels, aseth, GypsyT

      What is behind Gore's lost credibility is an big pile of right-wing and corporate media disinformation that has been so pervasive that many on the left (who should make it their business to know better!) don't know anything else. Sad.

      Please give me/us a substantial argument to not think that you are fullashiit w.r.t. Gore.

      •  Disappointment with Mr. Gore? His acquiescent fail (0+ / 0-)

        If memory serves, Mr. Gore was the person or entity "with standing"  that could have challenged the court rulings that doomed his election to the presidency.  He declined.

        Then, he starts a media enterprise, a tame puppy of a "alternative media" effort.  Nada.  Fail.  Sells it to a media company owned by Qatar, one of the worlds biggest oil country-companies.  

        In the interim he cranks out books and makes appearances around the ideas central to sustainability and ecological  responsibility.  Meanwhile unclear if he is riding the movement or contributing substantially to it.

        Yhana, yhanna, yhanna, IMO.

        •  Oscar, Nobel prize and more importantly perhaps... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GypsyT, Dianna, julesrules39

          People who know say he's absolutely not fullashit.

          He's respected by legit climate scientists for being a potent, credible source on climate and energy.

          He was and is central/key in making the movement you think he's "riding".

        •  He could have challenged court rulings? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delphine, VL Baker

          You wanted him to appeal the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling?  Really?  To whom?  He didn't "decline" the fight.  He fought for weeks and weeks, and the Supreme Court ruled for that filthy idiot Bush.

          Gore did everything but start an armed rebellion to get the office to which he'd been elected.  I don't blame him for not asking people to attack the Supreme Court building.

          "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

          by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:32:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I seriously hope/pray that you are not a teacher (0+ / 0-)

      Keone Micheals, you don't need to have met VP Gore to know what he's done with his time and money lately, which is committed to raisiing an army to fight climate change and spread truth about a lot of things, including offering publicly constuctive advice to world leaders, when appropriate.

    •  Wash you hands before you eat, look both ways (0+ / 0-)

      before crossing the street and keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you are talking about, Keone Micheals.  Also, swearing is bad.  

      You clearly haven't been through the first grade.

  •  Well I'm ready. Still have my Gore bumper sticker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, goodpractice, aseth

    on my old car, which will soon be vintage. ;>}

    I wish he'd run in 2004.

    That figure of 400k Hiroshimas every day is jaw-dropping!

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 12:37:46 PM PDT

  •  Omg Gore might run?? (6+ / 0-)

    Omfg, just maybe maybe we could have someone restore right and wrong to everything horrible that's happened since 2000

    He could come out as an actual leader.  What do we have to lose at this point.  I mean reality wtf do we have to lose anymore

    Gore would have the moral authority to turn it around, to the extent we even can at this point

  •  there is one and only one thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker, goodpractice

    that could get Al Gore to run for president again: if he could do more to fight climate change as president than he could as a private individual.

    That seems impossible in the current political climate. Our system is so broken and so supersaturated with fossil fuel money that trying to make serious progress on climate change would be an uphill battle even for the most committed and skillful politician. This is why he didn't run in '08, and it's why he won't run again, unless something fundamental changes.

    As with Churchill, only the most dire national emergency, an existential threat to America, such as another Great Depression, would call him out of his political retirement.

    I harbor two contradictory notions: I hope he doesn't have to run again, because the circumstances under which he would run are too terrible to seriously contemplate. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure America and the world are going to enter just such a full-blown state of total, imminent disaster pretty soon.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:58:49 PM PDT

  •  Oh pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    julesrules39, VL Baker

    Don't tease me!

    PLEASE tell me that Al Gore will run for POTUS in 2016!!!!

    One person can make a difference--and everyone should try. --John F. Kennedy

    by GypsyT on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 10:12:12 AM PDT

  •  There r 4 countries were the fossil fuel industry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    spends enourmous amounts of money on climate denial/misinformation ... US, Canada, UK and Australia

  •  he's right (0+ / 0-)

    and for almost all of our history.  I think the founding fathers used waterwheels, so they didn't address the problem -- omission by lack of acquaintance.  It needs to be a more fundamental concern.  At least function at the level of the Fed.  We also need to get away from Hamiltonian accounting principles -- the definitions of 'asset' and 'liability' are antiquated.  What is 'wealth', a teacher or the classroom she teaches in.  What about (quality) food and clean water?  just a job is a spigot adding value.  Why is our investment in common good not counting in the definition of 'asset'.  I rant again

  •  al gore is a piece of shit (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    CenPhx

    AL gore is a useless fuck stain if he really gave a shit about the environment he wouldn't own a company that sells carbon credits. His family is and have been proving themselves useless especially in the 80's, when his boring and border line retarded wife tipper tried getting arid of lyrics in music she didn't like and imposed this stupid parental advisory stickers we have now. Its called paying attention to what your children are doing not depending on a rating system and electronic babysitter to do your job.

  •  I agree with Goer, we must do something (0+ / 0-)

    I live in East Central Florida.  We have the Banana and the Indian "River" that is a lagoon that runs from Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie County and Martin County.  This is a lagoon, not a river and the water could remain in the lagoon for years.  There are few inlets that allow for an exchange of water: Port Canaveral Locks (they do not allow a tidal flow), Sebastian Inlet, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and the St. Lucie Inlet.  This is all the outlets on a 120 mile long lagoon.

    We have jurisdictional issues between County and the Cities in the Counties.  The County cannot impose restrictions on the Cities.  Years of discussion but no leadership in stopping the algae blooms that create fish kills.  With the algae blooms we see dead sea grasses  that provide food and safety for the inhabitants of the lagoon.  We are now seeing deaths of Manatees and Dolphin that reside only in the Lagoon as well as the fish.

    We know the sources of the pollution and the cause of the agley bloom:  Fertilizers, phosphates and organic matter from lawns and construction that find its way to the lagoon.  There are many older homes with septic and leech fields that feed the lagoon.  Pets are defecating along the banks and retention ponds and the owner pitches it into the waterway instead of using a baggie to clean it up.

    Instead of attacking the source cause of the algae, the Counties are studying digging several new inlets from the Atlantic to the lagoon.  Another concept is burying culverts underground and connect the Atlantic to the lagoon.  Price is not firm but several hundred million and the cost of new bridges and condemning homes is an additional cost.

    This is nuts, fix the problem and not treat the symptoms.  Push the waste sewer water piping to the homes and neighborhoods and when the septic fails you MUST hook up.  End the use of St. Augustine grass that is a pig for fertilizer and water.  Dog poops and you toss it, you get a fine.  It's cheaper to buy plastic bags.  You blow clippings into the storm drains, you get a $100 education.  many, many more solutions that will cost taxpayer nest to nothing.

    The lagoon is at the tipping point, like Gore's assertion of World polution.  Fish in the lagoon are poison, I won't eat them and some dolphin that have eaten sea trout were poisoned.

    This is a micro-cosmos of what Gore is talking about.  The lagoon represents the issues of the earth with acid rain (also a contributor to the lagoons ails), degrading ozone protection, polluting the waterways, and the list is endless.

    One last comment.  I was raised in Philadelphia.  In the '50 you were told you could never drown in the Delaware River, you would die of disease first.  In the '60's the Oxygen content of the water at the bottom of the Delaware at Philly was zero.  No fish could migrate up the river like Shad and Drum.  Leaders got serious, the river is refreshed and the drum and shad run up to the NY boarder is stronger than ever as well as the tourist money.  It can be done.

  •  Gore in 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    A Gore/ Warren ticket?
    I can think of worse.

    •  I love your idea, willymack. (0+ / 0-)

      He'd have a better chance of winning than Hillary and we would not have to hear about Benghazi for another 10 years!  

      My fear about Hillary is that she's very tight with big money and probably has a lot more skelatons in the closet that will be found out during a presidential run.

  •  2014 Candidate Recommendation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catilinus

    Gore/Sanders 2014

  •  $7 trillion sub-prime carbon assets (0+ / 0-)

    Global Thermostat claims that with economies of scale they can get the cost to capture CO2 down to $25/metric ton of CO2 = not quite $92/ton of carbon.  Spot price of coal seems about $60 to $70/ton short ton, maybe $85/metric ton of carbon content.  So buying coal as mineral rights should be cheaper than cleaning up after it.  Between the spot price of natural gas and what Wikipedia says about how much MMBtu of natural gas weighs, it seems natural gas sells for over $200/metric ton.  So cleaning up after natural gas so far seems cheaper than buying it as mineral rights.  Enhanced geothermal systems produce dis-patchable electric power for about the same price per kWh as wind which is intermittent which is about the same as with natural gas and not all that much more than with coal; and they can store lots of CO2--two or three 150MW enhanced geothermal systems if stuffed with CO2 should be enough to both store 10 trillion tons of carbon worth of past emissions and keep up with current emissions for some time.  It takes 90 years to fully stuff an enhanced geothermal system.  I suggest 1) imposing hard declining caps on greenhouse gas emissions from all sources and 2) getting our to too big to fail coal firms to each invest in drilling and fracking a 150MW enhanced geothermal system and stuffing it with CO2 captured by Global Thermostat and brokering federal permits to emit CO2 for at least $25/metric ton--maybe more to cover the brokerage fee also.

  •  Gore in 2016? (0+ / 0-)

    Even though Hillary would never take a back seat to anyone, still Gore as POTUS and Hillary as VP might be very interesting indeed.

    Brains in both positions.  How that would piss off the Republicraps.

    There is no right way to do the wrong thing!

    by HashHoward on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 07:18:55 AM PDT

  •  Global Warming (0+ / 0-)

    We have technology to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy (likely to cost $17 trillion) and to clean up greenhouse gas, mostly CO2 from using fossil fuel (most likely $1,210 trillion or over 7 times as much for 10 trillion metric tons of CO2 captured by Global Thermostat and stored in enhanced geothermal systems).  Now, we are fighting over who gets stuck paying how much.   Our military leaders say greening our energy supply will do more for national security than what they can do with weapons, and they have some military pork barrel they would gladly trade for greening our energy supply.  Assuming that a fourth of $537 billion for 2013 for Pentagon is pork that can be traded for renewable source electric power and that R&D US Navy funds Algae Systems to get algal bio-diesel cost-competitive with petroleum (now expected in 2016 at about $10/gallon) will succeed and be funded from rest of Pentagon budget, that means that almost $135 billion a year can be diverted to energy internet with smart grid electronics, energy storage, and more efficient high voltage long-distance transmission lines (HVDC)—and to wind, solar, and geothermal power.  If we also give up bullying other nations, we can divert another fourth total of $268 billion.  We need a price on carbon, which you might be able to get from state utility regulatory agencies as rate increases with revenue to be divided between energy efficiency equipment, renewable energy equipment, and coal as mineral rights as it is displaced.   You might also be able to persuade the I Love Mountains subsidiary of 350.org to fundraise for buying coal as mineral rights instead of spending all their funds on advocacy.  You might even be able to persuade 350.org to fundraise for capture of CO2 with Global Thermostat instead of spending all their funds on advocacy.

  •  Glbal warming (0+ / 0-)

    Each 100MW of enhanced geothermal system 260 billion metric tons of CO2 can store in each set of hot rock reservoirs which will last about 6 years.  On average enhanced geothermal system will use 15 sets of hot rock reservoirs storing 3.9 trillion metric tons.  Since it takes 150MW project to keep one drilling rig and crew busy, figure 5.85 trillion metric tons for one 150MW enhanced geothermal system over 90 years.  I hope other 4.15 trillion metric will be stored in bio-char by-product of algal bio-diesel.  That leaves 20 trillion tons of carbon in fossil fuel plus 3 trillion tons of carbon in 4 trillion tons of methane already leaking from thawing tundra and unstable seabed deposits mostly near mouths of large rivers.  Methane can be collected with dredges that work like giant vacuum cleaners.   Coal seems to be selling for $60 to $70 a short ton about 12,500 Btu, which I guess, is about $85 a metric ton of carbon content.  Gas sells at $3.60/Btu at the end of September 2013.  Wikipedia says 43.1MMBtu/short ton = 47.31MMBtu/metric ton.  So about $170/ton of natural gas 75% of which is carbon; $240/ton of carbon content of natural gas.  It seems cheaper to buy coal as mineral rights and clean up after natural gas with Global Thermostat and enhanced geothermal systems—if you can avoid leaks.   If Peabody Energy, Archer Coal, and any other too big to fail coal firm owns a drilling rig, it might make sense to ask them to invest in drilling and fracking enhanced geothermal system to sell heat by Btu to electric utility.  Federal government should buy and set up Global Thermostats at enhanced geothermal system sites and have CO2 used as fracking/hydraulic/heat-transfer fluid.  If you can get a hard declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions, you can ask coal firms to broker sale of CO2 used in geothermal system at $25/ton as offset to hedge against any failure to meet quota under cap.  You probably want two 150MW enhanced geothermal systems storing CO2, one to clean up past emissions and one to keep up with current emissions (about 40 billion tons CO2eq./year worldwide).

  •  I'd say Gore is much better at activism than at (0+ / 0-)

    politicking. And he seems much happier doing it too.

    "I understand, Mr. Spock. The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity."

    by brainwave on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:11:48 PM PDT

  •  Gore & Warren 2016 !!! nt (3+ / 0-)

    It's really about time i change my sig line...

    by stevenwag on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:16:04 PM PDT

  •  he is clearly cultivating (0+ / 0-)

    his image and wants to run in 2016....

    he is a corporatist... not a populous politican; that is only the IMAGE/persona he cultivates... as a matter of fact IMV he is a confirmed elitist .... and he hides it well with his PR teams, and others who profit from his public stature;

    The time to understand is long overdue that there is something fundamentally wrong when the US remains the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee healthcare to all its people. ~ Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT

    by anyname on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Gore 2016! (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to get into all the squabbling back and forth here about whether Gore is sufficiently "pure" from a progressive standpoint to merit the Democratic nomination for POTUS - if he should decide to run in 2016.  No candidate is perfect, and Gore's longstanding policy positions are well-known and forward-looking enough from my point of view to provide a substantial comfort factor, despite any potential misgivings.

    I supported Gore for the Presidency in 2000, and I yearned greatly for him to run again in 2008 (and in fact, held off on getting involved in the Obama campaign for months - until it became clear that Gore was staying out).  IF he does run again in 2016, he will not be the Gore of 20 years earlier.  He's more seasoned, more experienced, more authoritative...and I believe could be much more formidable - and effective.

    If Hillary does run in 2016, and if she does win the Democratic nomination for POTUS, I will of course vote for her without hesitation (although holding my nose in the process) over any Rethuglican candidate in existence.  But if it's a choice between Hillary and Al Gore, I would choose Gore in a heartbeat.  IMO, Gore has more moral authority and integrity in his little finger than both Bill & Hillary put together!

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:52:52 PM PDT

  •  I hope he runs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Suzanne 3, delphine, flevitan

    He was my top choice in 2008 by a country mile, followed eventually by Obama. I don't think he would be a full on progressive president, but I think he would be further to the left than Obama certainly is, and doubly so on Hillary, whom I don't trust at all with respect to economic issues and the middle class.

    My style is impetuous.
    My defense is impregnable.
    YOU'RE NOT ALEXANDER!

    by samfish on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:27:12 PM PDT

  •  Recommends not working...... (0+ / 0-)

    Is anyone else not finding the recommend boxes to rate comments?

  •  “as if it is an open sewer” (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VL Baker

    Reminiscent of what Chief Sealth (Seattle) is supposed to have said in one of his speeches.  That's the direction the white man was headed, even then.

    The opposite of pro is con. So what's the opposite of progress?

    by DSPS owl on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:45:08 PM PDT

  •  I don't think he would have a prayer of winning. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude

    Gore never came across as a strong leader, and after 2000, even liberals thought he gave up too quickly. Americans won't vote for a man who they see as weak.

    "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

    by tb92 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:53:19 PM PDT

    •  No, they'd much rather vote for a beer buddy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VL Baker, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      who crashes the world economy with two wars.

      American stupidity is the main reason the survival of the human race is in question.

      •  For many, that's true. (0+ / 0-)

        We've proven that you can get some Americans to vote for smart, reasonable people. But what has been the most common complaint against Obama? Even here, it is often said that he doesn't fight hard enough. That is forgiven whenever he win. But Gore, in the most important fight, didn't win. Americans will not vote for smart, reasonable people who can not win when it matters. It's not fair, but it's reality.

        "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

        by tb92 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:19:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How (4+ / 0-)

      can it be "too quickly" when he only "gave up" when the SUPREME COURT ruled against him.

      If memory serves, there is no appeal after that.

      •  Did he put up any real fight before that? (0+ / 0-)

        He should have been screaming about the importance of fair elections. He should have been on the television, getting the people involved. Most Americans have NO idea what steps he took. He handled the situation in a mature and quiet manner. But leaders don't sit back and let lawyers fight for them. From the point of view of most Americans, he was too weak to take what was rightfully his, and he let Bush win at great cost to the nation. I'm not saying that its right, but I can't see the public forgiving him for not making more of a fuss.

        "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

        by tb92 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:11:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Precisely why Gore would make a good president (0+ / 0-)

          but one that Americans are too stupid to elect.

          I doubt very much that Gore will run, but if he were nominated I would support him, as I did in 2000. I had been a registered Green up until then, but Gore's book Earth in the Balance convinced me he was a true environmentalist: he said many things in that book that were not likely to help his career. And he said things that, frankly, a politically motivated pseudo-environmentalist would never think of. He gets the connection between human population density and loss of biodiversity. Nader, on the other hand, was an egomanical spoiler.

          Yes, NAFTA was a crock, and I have personally suffered from US offshoring of tech jobs. But presidents don't decide things like that -- billionaires do. And changing that fact would take much more than an election; -- it would take a revolution, which doesn't look very likely (yet) and would probably result in an even more autocratic form of plutocracy.

          That said, I want a progressive woman president in 2016 and I want a candidate who is not a long shot. And that means I'm

    •  Gore would have to make the case (0+ / 0-)

      that he learned some lessons and is a different candidate today than he was in 2000. I suspect that's true and he could effectively make that argument.

  •  oh, yeah? where was he in 2004? (0+ / 0-)

    I have two basic questions for Al Gore before I can take him seriously as a leader:

    1)  Why Lieberman in 2000?   His choice for VP basically made the race close enough for Bush to steal.

    2)  Where were you in 2004?   Gore won the 2000 election.  What could possibly justify not running in 2004?

    It is the height of disingenuousness for Gore to pontificate about climate policy when he opted to not even try in 2004.  What other position in the world has more power over climate policy than President?

    A travesty wrapped in an enigma rolled up in a charade.

    •  Hmm (4+ / 0-)

      let's see if this helps.

      First, the party wasn't going to support him because of his association with Clinton.  LIEberman voted to impeach - they figured they'd stick a Clinton scold with Gore so he wouldn't have to be the scold.

      He took shit advice and didn't talk about the environment!  He took shit advice that he couldn't run on Clinton's record.

      It was the DLC, the ridiculous idea they were clinging to that moving to the center will get dems elected.  

      He was stupid to listen, I agree.  He wouldn't get that advice now, and he wouldn't listen if he did.

      In the meantime, sheez, the guy had his heart ripped out by the SCOTUS after enduring the most horrible and frustrating phony smears and attacks.  This sort of shit wurlitzer was not new but the scale of it, the speed and pervasiveness was new.  It was the start of a new type of political war.

      He fucking WON and knew that pretty much anything short of taking to the streets would not make a difference.

      He got FUCKED OVER.  By the Supreme Court of the United States.  Hell, I was blown away because I was naive enough to think they stood for something.  If you believed in the U.S. governmental system to any extent, you mourned that day.

      You come back to the public eye just 2.5 years after going through that shit.  His career of public service mocked by the unfair rejection of the highest institution.  

      And the biggest fucking loser clown propped up in his place.

      10 months later fucking planes flew into the WTC, planes flown by people he would have had his eye on.  

      The man was fucking crushed.  

      I can't even imagine showing up in public with a smile after something like that.  Yet he did.  He just didn't want to go through all that shit again.  

      How can you blame him?

      And you think he should have shaken it all off to announce his candidacy in 2002/3?

      Aside from the personal issues, who do you think the party was backing?

      •  A most excellent reply. (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks.

        "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

        by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:38:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  By 2003 he found out that there was (0+ / 0-)

        a whole lot of money to be made off global warming.

        •  Then why was he talking about it (0+ / 0-)

          20 years before that?

        •  Try this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flevitan
          Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate.
          He wrote that in 1989.  

          He presided over a senate panel on climate change in 1990.  Do you think corporations liked it?  He certainly wasn't making money from it.

          He just thought it was the right thing to do.

          He didn't discover the issue in 2003.

          The record shows you're simply wrong.

        •  And one more thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flevitan

          "Earth in the Balance" was published in 1992, again 11 years before you think he "found out there was a whole lot of money" in giving a damn about the crisis of climate change.

      •  good points - but still doesn't explain (0+ / 0-)

        I agree Gore got bad advice during the campaign.  I agree he got fucked over by Supreme Court.  I agree it had to be hard to take.

        But, still how does that build any confidence in talk of Gore 2016?

        He took the bad advice.  He made the bad choice of Lieberman.  He made the bad decision to distance himself from Clinton.  He did not effectively articulate the BIG issues - environment, health care, etc.

        So, what has changed to make him an attractive candidate?

        Yes he had to be discouraged after 2000.  Yes he had to be disheartened by the attacks that he might have been more effective in preventing.  Yes his accomplishments and vision was mocked and sullied.

        All the more motivation to run in 2004.  He won the votes in 2000.  A lot of people were already sick of the Bush Junta.  I firmly believe that he would have easily won in 2004 - the base was still stinging from the 2000 theft.

        As far as the Party goes, if "they" were the reason Gore did not run in 2004  and "they" were the reason Howard Dean was pushed to the sidelines and "they" are behind the whole Obama capitulation - then "they" have got to go!

        Candidates that run on real Democratic platform policies and positions have been consistently elected by good margins.

        Pelosi ("impeachment is off the table"), Reid ("again I threaten nuclear option"), Durbin ("social security is broke") - and their ilk who think compromising on core issues to appeal to some mythic independent, undecideds  - HAVE TO GO.

        And Gore with them.   The President of United States has to be a real leader - and tough enough to stick to it and stick it to them.

        See - Roosevelt, Johnson for examples.

  •  No other potential competitor to Hillary matches (5+ / 0-)

    Gore's combination of any two of the following measures:

    •    Name recognition

    •    Experience in national government

    •    Education from Presidential campaigning (including errors of management and messaging)

    •    Ability to self-fund campaign’s start-up, and thereby start dialogue with electorate, per his recent book, quoted in WashPo review“without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances.”

    •    Early criticism of W’s Iraq adventure & later criticism of NSA abuse under Obama

    •    Ability to force climate change to top of national agenda

    Progressive and other Democrats need a primary candidate who gives them a way:
    •    to demonstrate their views on the above issues (plutocracy/inequality, climate/health, NSA/surveillance, Iraq/militarism),

    •    to put competitive pressure on Hillary's positions on these issues,

    •    to create a block of convention delegates that can bargain over vice-presidential nominations, and

    •    conceivably to surprise everybody by preventing Hillary's apparently inevitable nomination.

    Of NYT's 2 reviews of Gore's book, I found the more interesting the one by Michael Lind, which credits as "fresh and arresting" Gore's phrase:
    “Democracy and capitalism have both been hacked”

    The title of Lind's review, "Democracy, Hacked", suggests potential Gore campaign slogans, such as:
    •    Un-hack Democracy!
    •    Un-hack Capitalism!
    •    Un-hack the Climate!
    •    Un-hack Liberty!
  •  Gore running in 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    It never crossed my mind. Until now. My first impression is not favorable.

  •  Oh good Gawd. (0+ / 0-)

    It was Albert Arnold Gore who firmly inserted Walker Bush into the presidency in 2000.  What the hell is the matter with you people?  Do you NEVER get tired of losing?  Let's bring Walter Mondale back while we're at it.

    A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

    by Dinclusin on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:22:21 AM PST

  •  about time? (0+ / 0-)

    meh, about 13 years too late for Gore.

    Al Gores fire would have been good to see in 2K, but what we saw was his belly when he rolled over.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:15:11 AM PST

  •  brass ovaries (0+ / 0-)

    Thats what will be needed to get ANYTHING like an environmental agenda passed  

    -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

    by Blueslide on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:27:07 AM PST

  •  I'd support Gore over Hillary in a heartbeat and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willinois, Gary in NY, flevitan

    I'm a big fan of hers.

  •  This thread is interesting. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flevitan

    I'm sorry to see Al Gore unfairly trashed, because that brings back memories of 2000, a year of hell.  However, in a sense I'm pleased to see that the mere mention of Al Gore's name brings out the name-calling propagandists and history-revisionists in huge numbers.  He clearly scares them to death.

    Run, Al, run!

    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:42:01 AM PST

  •  If Gore runs (0+ / 0-)

    he would be a different candidate simply by virtue of not being married to Tipper any more. Whether he'd be a better campaigner as a result, I don't know.

    I wanted him to be challenged for longer during the 2000 primaries and thus voted for Bill Bradley, but he remained in for only another week or two afterward. Gore might have done better in the fall if he'd had more competitors for the nomination and/or they'd lasted longer.

    I do know that Hillary can be as bad in front of a crowd as Gore sometimes was. My god, she could be tone-deaf in 2008. "I am so ready to lead," I heard her assert proudly to a pre-Iowa caucus crowd on C-SPAN (radio) at the time. Simply repellent.

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, buffalo soldier, Mimikatz, jec, Radiowalla, melo, GernBlanzten, Better Days, Geenius at Wrok, greenbird, Sprinkles, karlpk, alicia, Shockwave, kpardue, liz, eeff, rubyr, Sandy on Signal, niemann, bronte17, Zinman, EricS, Einsteinia, roses, ivote2004, Ignacio Magaloni, oneworld, dylanfan, wader, Miss Jones, pat bunny, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, wdrath, Steven Payne, hoof32, clarknyc, Brian82, AllisonInSeattle, WisVoter, vivadissent, Josiah Bartlett, oortdust, Gowrie Gal, marina, 3goldens, NoMoreLies, democracy inaction, dewtx, Laurence Lewis, eru, where4art, Sandino, mightymouse, noweasels, Jim R, begone, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Gorette, cookseytalbott, victoria2dc, DarkestHour, A Siegel, gpoutney, The Hindsight Times, Rosaura, katrinka, el cid, middleagedhousewife, CA Nana, Dianna, shaharazade, daeros, Nulwee, ammasdarling, samfish, Sapere aude, out of left field, ColoTim, Suzanne 3, BruceMcF, FishOutofWater, LillithMc, Mary Mike, Matt Z, deepeco, davehouck, bnasley, buckshot face, SeaTurtle, carpunder, Wreck Smurfy, aseth, Assaf, TomP, angry hopeful liberal, iglarmobley, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, limpidglass, elwior, Buckeye Nut Schell, tofumagoo, Cassandra Waites, No Exit, petulans, doppler effect, BYw, forgore, wv voice of reason, maggiejean, bluemoonfever, bleuet, Willinois, LinSea, ewmorr, CanyonWren, rbird, CamillesDad1, elziax, RJH, asym, bfitzinAR, Keith Pickering, stevenwag, sfarkash, rebel ga, citisven, collardgreens, catilinus, Words In Action, flitedocnm, Diesel Kitty, LaughingPlanet, piers, ATFILLINOIS, RJP9999, MsGrin, ericlewis0, USHomeopath, nosleep4u, lgrabowski, slice, newusername, annieli, Barbara Marquardt, I love OCD, kayak58, slowbutsure, Mr MadAsHell, BillyElliott, Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, GypsyT, smiley7, Hoghead99, BarackStarObama, LSmith, Andrew F Cockburn, blackjackal, DRo, Mentatmark, SouthernLiberalinMD, caryltoo, DEMonrat ankle biter, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, Heart n Mind, anodnhajo, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, martinjedlicka, peachcreek, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, TBug, radical simplicity, burnt out, New Minas, Glen The Plumber, Marjmar, Sue B, flevitan, Lily O Lady, nomandates, John Crapper, atana, jusjtim35, Linda1961, poopdogcomedy, goodpractice, aresea, blue91, Knockbally, Kombema, Mystic Michael, julesrules39, blackluck, Chas 981, eagleray, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, ptressel, mapakase, Selphinea, SouthernLeveller, socialismorbarbarism

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site