Opinion
Gore good choice for nomination
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Will Smith:
- Imus' fate should depend on market, not critics (April 12, 2007)
- Deregulation of campaigns vital (March 29, 2007)
- Israel right to reject Hamas government (March 22, 2007)
- Gore good choice for nomination (March 15, 2007)
- Prosecutor tarnishes Libby, justice system (March 8, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Mr. Gore, why haven't you entered the race for president? Your party needs you. As other candidates raise money and build campaign infrastructures in key primary and battleground states, the former vice president and 2000 presidential nominee has sat on the political sidelines, recently collecting an Oscar for his global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." While saying he does not intend to run, Mr. Gore has not ruled out the possibility. But it is not too late for Mr. Gore to throw his hat in the circus-like ring of the 2008 presidential contest. If he does, Democrats should thank him.
Mr. Gore is quite possibly the party's dream candidate for 2008. As an outspoken critic of the Iraq war since 2002 and darling of the environmentalist movement, the former vice president could gather major support from the far left of his party, including bloggers such as The Daily Kos and liberal congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But far from being the liberal candidate like, say, Howard Dean in 2004, Mr. Gore will experience broad support from the same moderate Democrats who almost made him president in 2000. Nobody in this race has the bread-and-butter knowledge of the issues like Mr. Gore, who spent a combined 16 years in the House and Senate, followed by eight years as vice president.
He can flank from the left on hot-button issues such as Iraq, thereby neutralizing other more liberal candidates such as Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. Yet he can also topple the self-proclaimed frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., by pulling in most moderate voters based on his experience as well as a sense of entitlement after his 2000 loss to George W. Bush, an election many Democrats still denounce as illegitimate. On many issues like taxes, health care and national security, Mr. Gore is whistling the same tune as most of his peers; the difference is that the over-scripted, boring Al Gore of yesteryear now demonstrates an obvious enthusiasm for his agenda.
Most importantly, the party's 2000 nominee has a reason for running, a hook to inspire people. As the nation's leading global climate change activist, he is quickly popularizing environmentalism among the masses. He spoke out against the war in Iraq when it was unpopular to do so, and many of his early criticisms about the Bush administration's handling of the war proved to be accurate. Sen. Clinton and former Sen. Edwards strike me as opportunists without a compelling reason to be president, and Sen. Obama is simply too inexperienced to lead the free world after only half a term in the Senate. The obviously intelligent and qualified Al Gore now has a specific passion and purpose to justify electing him to the highest office, complimenting his unmatched name recognition.
The three aforementioned senators have already started sparring with each other with petty sound bites and meaningless polling data, not to mention dozens of trips to Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Gore is smart to avoid this pre-pre-primary nonsense, instead relaxing at his Tennessee home and giving presentations on global warming while the other candidates expose themselves to an extra year of criticism and infighting. But when the time comes to actually pick the top of the Democratic ticket come 2008, the party must ask themselves the most important question of all: Who was on stage with Leonardo DiCaprio at the Academy Awards? Exactly. So for the Hillary Clinton haters out there, breathe easy, because when Mrs. Clinton wakes up to the inconvenient truth that she will never be elected, Mr. Gore will fall into step as the inevitable candidate and win the nomination.
Will Smith (wsmith@badgerherald.com) is a freshman majoring in political science and religious studies.
15 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Did ya see the recent NYT article pointing out the heavy load of BS in "An Inconvenient Truth"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?em&ex=1174104000&en=8d0e5a2e759715fe&ei=5070
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."
Dude, you were like 11 years old when Gore was running in 2000. You don't remember what a douche bag he was once in front of the camera. He turns into a condescending tree-trunk. Now, he'd be a borderline obese tree-trunk.
Also, you do not want to politicize environmentalism any more than it has been. Otherwise, half the country will drive a Prius and the other half will drive a Hummer. Global warming is the "new abortion."
Mr. Dream Candidate should have ran in 2004 if he had any balls. Hillary Clinton should have ran in 2004, as well. Gore and Clinton put their political futures ahead of the country's future. We must not elect people like this.
Now here's a really "Inconvenient Truth".
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
Maybe it will get warm enough to dairy farm in Greenland like they did a thousand years ago?
Unfortunetly, Gore's time has come and pass. Contrary to myth, I think Al Gore is quite content being a global warming crusader. Barack Obama should get the nomination... he's the only one that is electable in my opinion that doesnt have any sort of baggage. Personally, I'd rather have a President who is more of an intellectual (Barack rececived degrees from Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Chicago; admitted on MERIT, not on connections) than even the most experienced of politicians (think Rumsfeld and Cheney).
Are you guys idiots? Don't slap around any anti-global warming quotes from scientists around me - 99.9% of climate scientists think global warming is a reality. For every one quote you or the NYT digs up from some obscure "climatologist" I can dig up 1000 that say global warming is happening.
Politicize global warming? Global warming is the "new abortion!?" You're as crazy as loony Senator Inhofe...
About the article in the NYT.
Please see the reply in the huffington post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/debunking-the-nyts-slopp_b_43310.html
You mean the Puffington Host?
The Huffer didn't address how it was that there were dairy farms and grain fields in Greenland a thousand years ago - before Hummers ruined the Earth and all.
Dairy Farms in Greenland
I am told that the total area of the Eric the Red/ Lief Ericson Greenland colonies was about 250 square miles, which is quite a small area compared to the total size of the island. This says little about how much of the area was actually green and inhabitable. What we do know is that the climate was warm enough that the colonies survived for centuries, several generations. It's one more data point. It also implies periods of ice free ocean allowing sailing between Greenland and Iceland.
There are many such data points from which we can infer the length of the Medieval Warm period. Records of vineyards in England. Records of earlier planting times and longer growing seasons. The general agricultural plenty of the time. Indeed, had Mann not needed to get rid of the Medieval Warm so that his Hockey Stick would work, no one would be questioning the Medieval Warm period.
Now, of course, it has to go. And anyone who points out that the case for man made global warming is at best not proven must be ridiculed. So it goes.
www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view457.html
10:47am-- "99.9% of climate scientists think global warming is a reality."
Let's look back at the history of science. Whenever there's been a "consensus" in science, it usually means it ain't right. It has more to do with politics (or the state religion) than anything else. The best scientists *never* agree about anything.
I'm pretty sure the herald already published this same article by another writer. It's good to know you read your own paper.
check into occidental petroleum and its bolshievik commie founder (and his close ties to the gores)
worse than halliburton to me...
then again, i'm not a brainwashed lib.
also research al gore's 'manbearpig.'
Al Gore is the only forward-thinking candidate to date. He is looking at our country's future, not stuck in the quagmire of the present. Our country, which use to be admired, is now the laughing stock of the world, and depicted as the "bad guys" in both film and news. Our government leaders are ineffectual and too tied up in trying to please their contributors, instead of doing what is best for the American people. We should be looking towards our future, get off of oil so the oil regimes have no power over us, leaders in offering products that are healthful to the environment, and putting money into education and fixing our health insurance. Al Gore is our man.
We agree 100% President Gore won the election in 2000. Too bad that it was stolen from him, because we would not be in the
bottom of the barrel situation we are in now.
I see you have your share of freepers, calling you dude. Ingore them!
I wonder why these duuuuddddeesss are not in
the military serving their country in Iraq?
They are so knowing. HA!
Will this is a good comentary, thank you.
Right on!
Al Gore would be the one we prefer to be
President. Another, would be John Edwards.
Both intellegent and would get us off the
wrong track we've been on these past years.
We are fortunate to have men of honor like
these two.
Great commentary.