I’m still neck-deep in deadlines but when WLA commenter, Listener-on-the-Sidelines, pointed to the Al Gore rumors that have been popping up, like mushrooms after a rain, in the last couple of hours, it got my attention.
The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced on Friday and it has been long suspected that Al is on the short list. So when news leaked out, via a San Francisco Chronicle blog, that he had suddenly canceled today’s high profile fundraising appearance for Barbara Boxer in order to “travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission”….the gossip mill began going crazy.
Here, for example, is what the San Francisco Chron has to say:
Hundreds of loyal “Draft Gore” activists in California and around the nation hope Gore hits a trifecta of public recognition on Friday [he’s won an Oscar and an Emmy] when the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is announced. The award of a Nobel Prize could prompt the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate to change his mind and launch a 2008 presidential run, they believe.
“It’s like waiting for Grateful Dead tickets to go on sale, back in the day,” says Eric Schiller of Moss Beach, an activist with the California arm of America for Gore (americaforgore.org), one of a coalition of 19 independent groups pushing Gore to run for the White House.
Well, the news is actually a TAD bit more significant than waiting for the Grateful Dead to hit Ticketmaster…but we take your point.
According to the New York Times, the recent no comment comments from his staff have upped the anti on the Will Al Run If Drafted? speculations:
Mr. Gore declined an interview request Wednesday, but his representatives stopped short of declaring that he absolutely would not run. “He really deeply appreciates where this comes from, and what people are trying to say to him,” said Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman, though adding, “I think he’s said it many times, that he has no plans or intention to run for president.”
With Hilary Clinton the seemingly impossible-to-dislodge as the front runner, many of us wonder disconsolately if the Democrats are once again about to choose a candidate with too much baggage and without the broad appeal necessary for a general election.
Question: But what can we do about it? Answer: Draft Al.
Can He Save the Planet and Win the Presidency? asks Dan Balz at the Washington Post.
It would be nice.
UPDATE: I’m now getting a stream of press releases from people commenting in advance of Gore’s possible win, so it’s really in the air.
Here’s one, for example, from the Cato institute quoting Senior Fellow Patrick Michaels :
“…He’s like the proverbial nut that grew into a giant oak by standing his ground. We can only hope that he can parlay his prize into a run for the U. S. presidency, where he will be unable to hide from debate on his extreme and one-sided view of global warming.”
(Photo by Keith Bedford of the New York Times)
Well, it’s logical for Gore to win the Nobel. The committee specializes in awarding the prize to people who badmouth the U.S. and work to hurt our free economy.
Of course a liberal organization such as the Peace Prize Committee would nominate a loser like Al Gore. What would a bunch of stupid socialists from Norway really know. Global warming is nothing but another myth perpetuated by crazy liberals.
President George Bush should be nominated for a Nobel peace for his management of the Katrina disaster and for bringing peace and freedom to the Iraqi people. And most importantly for keeping us safe from terrorists.
Gore would just take votes away from Edwards, maybe Obama, and make it easier for Hilary to get the Dem nomination. He’d never win the election against the Republican candidate, so if the Dems want to lose the election, push Gore to run. I’m not picking any horse in this race right now, at least not openly. Curious that Giuliani seems to be imploding by overdoing the 9/11 theme, and cutesy wife calls, etc.; Thompson hasn’t done well without scripted lines. The biggest pol winner on CNBC’s post Republican-debate poll was Ron Paul, who’s considered a conservative, but favors legalizing pot, making Congress ratify any Pres’s declaration of war, various other issues that sound more Dem. or even libertarian. Strongly suggests that voters would like a candidate who’s not hard-line along either party’s line, but an independent thinker. Too bad our election process, with its primary system, pretty much eliminates that sensible option.
Gore did some bang-up job on Kyoto and global warming when he was in office. Now, exactly what was that?
Celeste, I know that you’re smart, but it is completely beyond me how you can get excited about this glory hound robot. Maybe you or someone could explain it to me, and leave out the emotion.
Problem w/ Kyoto was, it exempted third world countries like China and India from the same goals and limitations, UNTIL they reached the economic level of the U S. As it is, China’s pollution is blowing over the U. S., too, and anyone who’s been there, India, Cairo, former East bloc and Moscow and other developing countries knows what coal does to the air. India is actually enacting very stringent requirements in some areas, even banning smoking in Delhi and Bombay/ Mumbai, even inside private homes, unless everyone including servants gives permission for the person to smoke. But this is voluntary as their voters become more educated and empowered; no such thing in China, which is the worst. (But in India like many countries, every single lake is too polluted for recreational purposes like swimming, even in the Himalayas except for one in a Buddhist region — lack of respect for water cleanliness around the world is truly shocking. They are running out of drinking water.)
So Kyoto etc. must apply to all countries, no exceptions, or not at all. This logical point of holding the U.S. to a different standard, is always overlooked by the liberal environmentalists. IF it were uniform, I’d agree w/ it, since environmental degradation is a critical issue.
Maggie writes Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ and anyone whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been there, India, Cairo, former East bloc and Moscow and other developing countries knows what coal does to the air. But in India like many countries, every single lake is too polluted for recreational purposes like swimming, even in the Himalayas except for one in a Buddhist region Ã¢â‚¬â€ lack of respect for water cleanliness around the world is truly shocking. They are running out of drinking water.
Maggie – You sound like those tree-hugging, peace& love stupid hippies of the 1960’s, who actually believe the global warming and pollution silliness. The liberal hippies love to impose strict pollution regulations on big business. The capitalist system of America is what is best for the environment and Mother Nature. You should know the tree-hugging hippies just hate big corporations trying to do business near any river, and make up silly things like water pollution. The United States does not need a bunch of stupid hippies trying to impose pollution control regulations on us or any business.
You sound like Celeste who actually believes in global warming. I still remember the story Celeste wrote from Montana titled Ã¢â‚¬Å“A tale of Vanishing GlaciersÃ¢â‚¬Â. Celeste wrote some silly story about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“supposedÃ¢â‚¬Â effects of Global Warming on Glacier National Park. Everybody knows the World goes through long and slow climate changes. Just because Celeste sees a little ice melting at Glacier National park does not mean anything.
You two emotional women need to read this article by Ann Coulter titled Ã¢â‚¬Å“Reconsidering the 19th AmendmentÃ¢â‚¬Â. Ann Coulter is one of the few truly intelligent women in America. And she also knows how to avoid pies thrown by stupid liberals.
Well, “Woody’s Ghost” is close but doesn’t express my thoughts with enough force.