Gore and Prius

To answer your question, I would like to see Gore enter the race. On Iraq, the environment, and most issues he's on the right side. Despite the head start that the other candidates have in this early race for the presidency (I heard this morning that Clinton has raised $26 million already), it's conceivable that Gore could jump in at this "late" point and still raise money (which, of course, is what it's all about).
I did read your blog entry about supporting the best candidate in both parties. An interesting idea- hedging your bets. Of course it's contrary to the mindset of American politics, which is all about winning at all costs; not about ideals. I agree with your picks of Gore and Obama, and I might also consider Edwards as a good candidate. I'm not at all in favor of Hillary Clinton; she has been a supporter of the Iraq war although she is attempting to re-write that, and her triangulation to appease the right makes it impossible to see what she really stands for. I'm not so sure about Ron Paul (I read a bit about him after seeing him on Bill Maher's show). I'm confused about his stand on issues such as abortion rights, separation of church and state, etc., where I thought that Libertarians were on the side of individual rights; that doesn't seem to be where Ron Paul stands. If I had to choose a Republican candidate that I could accept if he actually won, I would probably go with Chuck Hagel. On virtually every issue other than the Iraq war (the environment, civil liberties, etc.) I am on the opposite side from Hagel. However, I would at least take some consolation that a Democratic-controlled Congress could prevent him from making extreme policy decisions in those areas. When it comes to ending the war (and avoiding new ones), the President is the key player.

 

I'd much rather see Obama elected as president.

 

If the Gore of 2007 ran in 2000, I would have voted for him in a minute. However, in 2008 people will still remember the Gore of 2000, so there's no way he would get elected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Paul Levinson @ Apr 2 2007, 03:07 AM) [snapback]416343[/snapback]</div>

Although I voted for him in 2000, I didn't like him much. I like him much more now. I'd be happy with ABB right now, and although I'd love to see Gore or Hilary in the White House, my preference right now is Obama.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Apr 2 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]416421[/snapback]</div>

i can't help thinking the gore of 07 is a hypocrit - granted he's a politician so my expectations are low to start off with. but flawed as it was, the clinton administration (as much as i loved those years) didn't sign the kyoto protocol. didn't even attempt to amend it. so gore loses the 2000 election, grows a beard and all of a sudden he's in tune w/ mother earth and wants to stop global warming? he knows, in addition to it being a very real problem, its a popular topic among hollywood types and liberals. too little too late. and how annoying is it that he won an oscar?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gonegreen @ Apr 2 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]416439[/snapback]</div>

How can you blame Gore for that? He tried. Also (in Clinton's defense), the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming wasn't reached until 2001, under GWB's watch.

 

I would prefer fresh blood. He tried and failed. Perhaps because he is destined for something greater and more useful to humankind then President of the US. Besides he doesn't drive a Prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Apr 2 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]416448[/snapback]</div>

i don't blame him for that, i blame him for not pushing for an alternative. if only he were half this proactive while he was the v.p. and the main reason the protocol wasn't signed wasn't b/c of lack of scientific evidence. i'ts b/c the u.s. didn't like the fact they were being regulated while developing countries like china and india weren't. we'd lose an economic advantage. i mean, i know gore is a genius seeing as he develope the internet and all which allows us to have this discussion, but i'd much rather see hilary or obama.

 

I am not sure that Gore as VP could have been all too effective at pushing policy (has any VP ever been proactive about policy??). And in defense of Gore's last 7 years, he has been a strong environmentalist since he walked into the US House in the 70s. His last 7 years is just an extension of his previous environmentalism. I don't care if Al Gore runs or not, however, I actually would be a bit surprised to see him run against Hillary Clinton.

As far as the horse race, I am currently leaning towards Hillary. Obama is a nice fresh face and I probably agree with his policy stands the most, but given his relative youth and is relative short history of US policy votes, I would rather see him step aside in the race. His idealism will start to hurt him later after his newness wears off, and I worry if he could pick up many independent votes in the general election against a Guiliani or other moderate republican. Hillary is a bit more pragmatic and I think she has a better chance at winning the general election, even if she has a lot of haters out there from insecure men and women who hate strong women. I reserve the right to change my mind later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 2 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]416491[/snapback]</div>

I'd say Cheney has been more than a little "proactive", but that's an isolated case. I don't think Bill Clinton and Gore liked each other much, and I doubt Bill paid much attention to anything he had to say.

I would love to see Gore run. He should have had the job in 2000, but the combination of the Supreme Court, Ralph Nader, and his own lousy campaign sunk it. Can you imagine how different the aftermath of 9/11 would have been with Al in the office? Betcha he would have put his book down a little quicker <_< .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Apr 2 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]416453[/snapback]</div>

According to this post by hycamguy07, Gore owns two Priuses.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]416395[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, I would agree with you that Obama looks like the best of the field at this point- not that I am ready to sign onto any one candidate this early. But I think that Gore entering the race would ensure that environmental issues, global warming, and alternative energy are brought to the foreground in the debate. Getting out of Iraq is our most pressing issue (assuming that the war isn't ended before the '08 election), but the environment needs to be a campaign issue this time- it was hardly mentioned in '00 and '04.

 

We could do worse.

But this time around, we can also do better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Apr 2 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]416509[/snapback]</div>

I stand corrected! Good for him. Now if he can get himself a Hybrid Jet

Maybe he can push for the vehicle fleet of the government to start using more hybrid's. Youi know actually save tax payer money by reducing fuel costs?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Slow & Green @ Apr 2 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]416507[/snapback]</div>

You had a typo in your post which I fixed. You're welcome.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 2 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]416491[/snapback]</div>

Not really. Have you looked at his record before he became VP? He had a HORRIBLE environmental record.

I don't dislike her because she's a "strong woman". I would LOVE to see a strong woman run for office. I would NOT like to see a woman (or man, for that matter) who bends over backwards to whoever has the most money and is most politically smart for the very short term (no matter how stupid it will be in the long term). IF she gets the Democratic nomination, and IF there is no good third-party candidate, THEN I'd vote for her. And I'd be holding my nose while I do it.

 

Ya know, I like Gore right where he is. And I think he's found what he's good at/happy with. He just seems more comfortable in the role he's carved out for himself; much more relaxed, at ease, and happy, by all appearances. Let him stay there, and keep on with the good fight. Perhaps have a role in a new government--perhaps administrator of the EPA. Actually, maybe someone will make the EPA a cabinet agency, so he could be Secretary of the Environment.

And as far as the others go, this country is a mess. And as I've stated, I don't know why anyone in his/her right mind would want the job. I'm concerned about Obama's experience. I still doubt that Hillary is electable. I wonder about Edwards' substance.

If it wasn't for his agreement with the President on Iraq, I'd actually like Giuliani. No other Repubs stand out for me.

I do think that Hillary is the most experienced of the lot of 'em--eight years in the White House already, after all. And I still like the "two for one" adage.

Acchhh--thank heavens I have a year and a half to decide! And who knows what'll happen? Remember the "Monkey Business," anyone?

 

Gore has said he's not running.

It could be that Gore has found that in his current role he can be more effective than as President, if he should win.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 2 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]416610[/snapback]</div>

You mean when Ronald Reagan played supporting actor to a monkey (actually a chimpanzee) who would have been a better president than he was?

It's time for a woman to be president. It's time for a person of color to be president. It's time for a president who's not a moron. Of course, on policy and demeanor and honesty, Barak Obama is my first choice. But my second choice is Condoleezza Rice. Sure, she's a complete toady under Bush. But I'd give her the benefit of the doubt if she were in the top position. And just as it took a reactionary to open relations with China, maybe it will take the Republicans to elect an African-American woman to the presidency.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]416674[/snapback]</div>

Do you actually agree with her on any political issues or is your choice based solely on the fact that she is a woman of African American descent?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]416674[/snapback]</div>

No.

Absolutely not.

Not because she's a woman.

Not because she's black.

Not just because she's a Republican.

But because she's a BUSH Republican.

Haven't the last two terms taught you anything?