- -

Al Gore Might Yet Join 2008 Contenders

Former Vice President Keeps Mum
As His Movie Sparks Talk of a White House Run
By JACKIE CALMES
May 8, 2006

for discussion only

First there was Clinton-Gore. Could Clinton vs. Gore be next?
For former Vice President Al Gore, a rash of favorable publicity surrounding this month's opening of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," and the growing political resonance of its subject -- global warming -- are stoking the most serious speculation about a Gore political comeback since his loss in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats' nomination between Bill Clinton's former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton's electability, that is part of the appeal.

"I appreciate that buzz, but he's not running for president," insists Michael Feldman, a former vice presidential adviser who is helping promote the film and Mr. Gore's new book on which it is based. "He has been spending a considerable amount of time trying to educate people about the issue of global warming," and won't talk about politics "right now," Mr. Feldman says.

The demurrals aren't persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton-Gore White House insiders. "I do know that he's thinking about it. I know for a fact," a former adviser says. "He's talked to people about the pros and cons."

Among those said to be pushing Mr. Gore are billionaire venture capitalist and high-tech entrepreneur John Doerr and Laurie David, a global-warming activist and producer of the film, and wife of "Seinfeld" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" creator Larry David. "When people see this movie, I know they're going to see the real Al Gore, and they're going to demand that he run," Ms. David says. But, she adds, he changes the subject whenever it comes up, and had to be talked into making the movie when she pitched it.

Mr. Gore has begun assembling a Nashville, Tenn.-based operation to help with the demands on his time. He has hired longtime friend and top aide Roy Neel to head the office, and environmental activist Kalee Kreider, from a Washington public-relations firm, to handle communications. Mr. Feldman says their work will focus on global warming, not on maneuvering for 2008.

Yet the talk of a political second act for the man who won the 2000 popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, exceeds anything before 2004, when Mr. Gore could have sought a grudge match against President Bush.

In recent weeks, he has been on the covers of Vanity Fair, Wired (its headline: "The Resurrection of Al Gore") and American Prospect, a liberal Democratic magazine. Defeated politically, he nonetheless makes Time's list of the world's 100 most influential people; Mr. Gore is featured under the headings "Heroes and Pioneers" and "America Takes a Fresh Look at 'Ozone Man'" -- the derisive nickname coined by the first President Bush in 1992 after Mr. Gore's previous environmental book, "Earth in the Balance," came out.

"His star will never be higher than it is right now with his movie coming out," says Democratic consultant Karen Skelton, Mr. Gore's former political director.

The Gore buzz reflects a sense among even some pro-Clinton Democrats that Mrs. Clinton, considered the prohibitive favorite for the nomination given her support in the party's base of activists and donors, can't win the general election because she is a polarizing figure to many voters. These skeptics believe only someone such as Mr. Gore with the celebrity and fund-raising potential to match Mrs. Clinton could stop her.

Like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Gore remains a negative figure to many voters, says a Democrat who has seen private polls. For both, that might only increase with the spectacle of a Clinton-Gore brawl. Even insiders can't fully account for the bad blood that has built up since. At bottom, they say, it reflects contrasting views of what cost Mr. Gore the 2000 election: Mr. Clinton's scandals, or Mr. Gore's decision to so fully separate himself from a president who remained popular amid peace and prosperity. Several insiders say Mr. Gore is more likely to run if Mrs. Clinton does than if she doesn't.

Also controversial among Democrats was Mr. Gore's 2004 endorsement of Howard Dean, now the Democratic Party chief, just as Mr. Dean was stumbling in his presidential primary race against the ultimate nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Mr. Kerry also is considering another run in 2008, though he, like Mr. Gore, would have the taint of a loser for partisans craving a fresh face.

According to Mr. Feldman and others, Mr. Gore is enjoying his freer and more lucrative life as a private citizen. "My expectation is he's not going to run in 2008," says Tad Devine, a top Gore strategist in 2000 who hasn't spoken with him lately. "He's in a really good place, and he's succeeding fabulously. Why would he want to walk away from it all?"

Mr. Gore and his wife, Tipper, have a new home in an affluent Nashville area, and they recently bought a condominium in San Francisco, nearer to two daughters in California. Since conceding to Mr. Bush, he has taught at several universities and written two books with his wife. He is on Apple Computer Inc.'s board and is senior adviser to Google Inc. He has founded Current, a youth-oriented, interactive cable network, and Generation Investment Management, which invests in companies deemed environmentally and socially responsible.


Periodically he has spoken out against Mr. Bush on the environment, Iraq and alleged abuses of executive power, in speeches promoted by the liberal group MoveOn.org. And he has widely given the 90-minute lectures and computer slide shows on global warming that, for all his reputed stiffness, gave rise to a film that drew standing ovations at the Sundance Film Festival.

On stage and in the film, a deadpan Mr. Gore opens, to laughs and applause: "I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States of America."

Mr. Gore, who turns 60 in 2008, could remain noncommittal and enter the presidential fray late, given his fame and fund-raising potential -- unlike lesser-known Democrats already stumping in the early-nominating states to be the Clinton alternative, such as former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. If Mr. Gore ran -- or were drafted, as Ms. David suggests -- the longtime Washingtonian would run as an outsider, Democrats expect, helped along by his relationship with Internet-savvy MoveOn.org activists.

There would be no small irony in Mr. Gore re-emerging with a crusade against global warming. In 2000, he played down the issue he had so long been identified with in Congress, on his consultants' advice. They feared the younger Bush, like his father, would use the issue to reinforce an image of Mr. Gore as a bloodless wonk, and make it a jobs question for voters in swing industrial and coal-mining states. "The campaign took this issue off the table and robbed him of seeming 'big' and visionary," says former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. "I think he regrets that."

LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT !!!!!!!

You're right, Sean, he really has loosened up quite a bit.

Somewhere around here I said that Hillary would eventually knock off Gore by co-opting his global warming crusade.

Apparently she isn't wasting any time.

Originally Posted by Linus

Somewhere around here I said that Hillary would eventually knock off Gore by co-opting his global warming crusade.

Apparently she isn't wasting any time.

Good observation, but is it all posturing? :? If she wins the nomination a big sign would be whom would she choose as her running mate. :!:

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Linus

Somewhere around here I said that Hillary would eventually knock off Gore by co-opting his global warming crusade.

Apparently she isn't wasting any time.

Good observation, but is it all posturing? :? If she wins the nomination a big sign would be whom would she choose as her running mate. :!:

Good observations, two leading Democratic Party presidential hopefuls co-opting Jimmy Carter's "malaise" solutions to a dubious premise. A premise which merely champions the notion that America's best days are long gone. And it's time to bring back the horse and buggy, choose corn not oil, don sweaters, turn down, cut back, do without, raise taxes, draft youngin's for "national service," make war not love, etc., etc., etc.

Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Linus

Somewhere around here I said that Hillary would eventually knock off Gore by co-opting his global warming crusade.

Apparently she isn't wasting any time.

Good observation, but is it all posturing? :? If she wins the nomination a big sign would be whom would she choose as her running mate. :!:

Good observations, two leading Democratic Party presidential hopefuls co-opting Jimmy Carter's "malaise" solutions to a dubious premise. A premise which merely champions the notion that America's best days are long gone. And it's time to bring back the horse and buggy, choose corn not oil, don sweaters, turn down, cut back, do without, raise taxes, draft youngin's for "national service," make war not love, etc., etc., etc.

Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

The beautiful thing about the coming "geo-green" (to borrow a term from the goofy Tom Friedman) regeneracy is that both the luddite, malthusian left and the hydrocarbon suckers (meant literally and otherwise) of red America will be cast aside for new technologies and sustainable growth.

The patron saint of the new malthusians Mr. Jared Diamond is a bright man, but wrong. Soil and climate were only necessary prerequisites for the triumph of the European west, not its causes. Without reform monarchs (and later autocrats and parliaments), a theology that valued free will, a culture (and increasingly legal system) that valued individual rights, the English would not likely have invented the agricultural technologies that put an end to the periodic famines accompanying boom and bust cycles (and made possible sustained population growth [first in England, then on the continent, now everywhere), and made it possible for a merchant class to leave the farms and enrich themselves, and their countries.

But if certain people on the left remain haunted by 16th century fears, certain people on the right remain wedded to a 19th century mindset, with an almost theological belief that oil is forever (and if not forever that there is nothing that can be done about it the near term), that climate change is a fairy tale (and if not a fairy tale there is nothing we can do about it without wrecking the economy).

The malthusian left traffics in fatalism. The Republican right traffics in defeatism.

As Mr. Friedman points, we are funding both sides in the war on terror, bankrolling the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines with our tax dollars, and al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad with our oil dollars.

It seems to me the defenders of the status quo are undermining our national security, not the advocates of change. It seems to me the green capitalists are the inheritors of the best western tradition of reform and innovation and optimism - and you folks are literally on the side of the dinosaurs.

Your entire argument hinges upon the potato famine premise: everyday folks are stupid, so we need elitists like Henry Wallace et al. to save us from our stupidity.

Yeah, well, Henry et al were pretty damn stupid too.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Your entire argument hinges upon the potato famine premise: everyday folks are stupid, so we need elitists like Henry Wallace et al. to save us from our stupidity.

Yeah, well, Henry et al were pretty damn stupid too.

The Famine happened for political reasons (the malign neglect of British landlords and officials, and the failure to bring land reforms), and technological reasons (the failure to implement the agricultural practices of England, also arguably the fault of British elites).

Good leadership matters at some points more than others. Few monarchs, dictators, or presidents are responsible for the great leaps forward; they just craft the policies that help to create the conditions that make them possible.

America can't continue to depend on fossil fuels any longer, for geo-strategic reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons, and this country needs leadership who will create the conditions that will spur innovation to make America energy independent.

We lavish billions on the oil companies in subsidies every year, to say nothing of the cost of providing military protection for tankers, and the cost of continuing to provide protection for corrupt, repressive, oil-rich Arab dictators. Which part of our oil dollars fund terrorism didn't you understand?

Poor, corrupt Brazil mandated flex fuel cars twelve years ago, and is now a net exporter of fuel. There is no reason America can't do the same, and better.

It isn't a choice anymore; it's a necessity. And your president is failing the American people on the most important issue of our time. He is unserious, a man child.

If your attitude is any indication of the Republican mindset, I feel confident Hillary Clinton and her reform centrist comrades will be running things come 2009.

Originally Posted by Linus

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Your entire argument hinges upon the potato famine premise: everyday folks are stupid, so we need elitists like Henry Wallace et al. to save us from our stupidity.

Yeah, well, Henry et al were pretty damn stupid too.

What are you talking about?

The Famine happened for political reasons (the malign neglect of British landlords and officials, and the failure to bring land reforms), and technological reasons (the failure to implement the agricultural practices of England, also arguably the fault of British elites).

Good leadership matters at some points more than others. Few monarchs, dictators, or presidents are responsible for the great leaps forward; they just craft the policies that help to create the conditions that make them possible.

America can't continue to depend on fossil fuels any longer, for geo-strategic reasons, for economic reasons, and for environmental reasons, and this country needs leadership who will create the conditions that will spur innovation to make America energy independent.

We lavish billions on the oil companies in subsidies every year, to say nothing of the cost of providing military protection for tankers, and the cost of continuing to provide protection for corrupt, repressive, oil-rich Arab dictators. Which part of our oil dollars fund terrorism didn't you understand?

Poor, corrupt Brazil mandated flex fuel cars twelve years ago, and is now a net exporter of fuel. There is no reason America can't do the same, and better.

It isn't a choice anymore; it's a necessity. And your president is failing the American people on the most important issue of our time. He is unserious, a man child.

If your attitude is any indication of the Republican mindset, I feel confident a small group of hawkish, centrist Democratic elites will be running the country by this time in 2009, and they are likely to be led by Hillary Clinton.

Henry Wallace made his fortune and employed many people in a growth industry because he used knowledge effectivly. America's best days don't have to be behind it, but they will be if we keep pretending that we're still in the 20th century. For a lot of reasons economic, environmental, military ect. that have been mentioned elsewhere this 4t is going to be a test of America's ability to adapt. The 1970's oil shocks were a warning that was largely ignored in the "dream" slowly turning nightmare as the passing 2t began to feel more unraviled than high.
We can't afford to "dream on oil" anymore. Brazil had very little domestic oil production and no really entrenched oil industry. So, the drive for ethanol encountered a minimum of resistance there. Doing this was politically impossible in America during the 2t and the 3t. There is no guarentee that the hands of the past will be broken in the 4t, there will be a fight over these issues. Yes, some energy industry leaders embrace the chance to devolop cleaner 21st century technologies, but many don't. Pressure will also be applied in the future into forcing R and D money into established and largely parasitic energy conglomerates at the expense of smaller, more innovative but less established companies and free lance inventors..

This is some of what I see as tests for the 4t in the field of energy. The gasolene powered world is going to pass away. It can be replaced with a cleaner electricity based world. There are strong forces that will fight to keep an unsustainable status quo in place. Our success or failure in the 4t will be partly determined by how we handle the energy transition.
Or else it will handle us.

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

My side says the oil/energy shortage of the 1970 was totally contrived: a silly game fueled by rampant NIMBYism and environmental fear. Suddenly, nobody in America wanted to see oil rigs standing on Love Canal or off the beach at Half Moon Bay. And the logical alternative, nuclear power, gave way to contrived fear via the Hollywood-hyped Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Thus the only solution resulted in America's utterly ridiculous choice of dependence on the oil field owned and controlled by despots and tyrants in the Middle East.

Sigh. Neither 9/11 nor the destruction of Katrina proved to be enough of an alarm bell for the American people to come to grips with this silly present-day dependence scenario contrived in the 1970s. I suspect the detonation of a nuclear bomb somewhere on our soil will, perhaps, do the trick. At that point all the luxurious NIMBYism and environmental concern for the native Caribou tribes will melt in a sea of outrage and bloodthirsty anger. Then, all bets are off as to what will come next. But it won't be a pretty sight to behold.

That's what my side says.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

My side says the oil/energy shortage of the 1970 was totally contrived: a silly game fueled by rampant NIMBYism and environmental fear. Suddenly, nobody in America wanted to see oil rigs standing on Love Canal or off the beach at Half Moon Bay. And the logical alternative, nuclear power, gave way to contrived fear via the Hollywood-hyped Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Thus the only solution resulted in America's utterly ridiculous choice of dependence on the oil field owned and controlled by despots and tyrants in the Middle East.

Sigh. Neither 9/11 nor the destruction of Katrina proved to be enough of an alarm bell for the American people to come to grips with this silly present-day dependence scenario contrived in the 1970s. I suspect the detonation of a nuclear bomb somewhere on our soil will, perhaps, do the trick. At that point all the luxurious NIMBYism and environmental concern for the native Caribou tribes will melt in a sea of outrage and bloodthirsty anger. Then, all bets are off as to what will come next. But it won't be a pretty sight to behold.

That's what my side says.

Taking your "points" more or less in the order you made them:

• There was no oil shortage in 1970. The first was in 1973, and it was triggered by a Saudi-led OPEC embargo in response to our support of Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

• NIMBYism lives, but 90%+ is found in the upper-scale communities with political clout. 90% of that 90% is Republican.

• Nuclear power is and has long been a good idea, but fear of the unknown has killed it. TMI, contrary to conventional wisdom, was not a technology failure. In fact the technolgy, as primitive as it was, worked. The people failed. Modern controls will even prevent those kind of failures. I think perception is finally aligning with reality on this.

• You seem to think that oil will appear if you wish it to. Now that Mexico's oil is beginning to decline, there are only two large sources of oil in North America: the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta and the dispersed oilshale deposits in Colorado and Montana. Both of those sources deliver oil at the crude-equvalent price of $80-$90 a barrel. Conservation and renewables are a whole lot cheaper.

• There isn't enough oil in ANWR to make it worth the effort. Put the money into developing new technologies, first. BTW, if we start today, ANWR will start providing oil in 2016. Other options, like drilling in the Atlantic, are unlikely to produce anything.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

DA has just summed himself up.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Conservation and renewables are a whole lot cheaper.

David, you're missing his underlying subtext. Conservation is for wimps, and renewable energy is for sissies and girlie-men.

Oil drilling (and burning as much of the stuff as you can once it's refined) is for manly men.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

DA has just summed himself up.

I could only wish that your side is willing to lose, but I ain't that stupid, dude.

p.s. The "s" was missing from my quote:

• My side says the oil/energy shortage of the 1970[s] was totally contrived:

Trying to score a point with this sort of picky nit reflects more on the pretentious nitpicker than me.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Conservation and renewables are a whole lot cheaper.

David, you're missing his underlying subtext. Conservation is for wimps, and renewable energy is for sissies and girlie-men.

Oil drilling (and burning as much of the stuff as you can once it's refined) is for manly men.

He's just being his normal snide self. I retorted his "points" because the subtext was typical baiting, and not worth the mention.

I do find it funny that those who have never had to discomfort themselves are the first to beat their chests and play Rambo. Not surprising, Swartzenegger, Stallone and Lambo are all in that group. Rough, tough and home for dinner by 6.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

My side says the oil/energy shortage of the 1970 was totally contrived: a silly game fueled by rampant NIMBYism and environmental fear. Suddenly, nobody in America wanted to see oil rigs standing on Love Canal or off the beach at Half Moon Bay. And the logical alternative, nuclear power, gave way to contrived fear via the Hollywood-hyped Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Thus the only solution resulted in America's utterly ridiculous choice of dependence on the oil field owned and controlled by despots and tyrants in the Middle East.

Sigh. Neither 9/11 nor the destruction of Katrina proved to be enough of an alarm bell for the American people to come to grips with this silly present-day dependence scenario contrived in the 1970s. I suspect the detonation of a nuclear bomb somewhere on our soil will, perhaps, do the trick. At that point all the luxurious NIMBYism and environmental concern for the native Caribou tribes will melt in a sea of outrage and bloodthirsty anger. Then, all bets are off as to what will come next. But it won't be a pretty sight to behold.

That's what my side says.

And increasingly people don't believe you anymore. That is what has changed. It is with good reason.

1.2 billion Chinese and 1.1 billion Indians don't want to live in mud huts and drive donkey carts anymore. They want to live in condominiums and four bedroom ranch styles. They want to drive Volkswagens, and Lincolns.

Unless you believe in abiotic oil, you have to come to terms with the fact that the cost of gasoline isn't coming down again - no matter where and how much we drill.

There is a reason the oil companies have increasingly defunded exploration, and it has nothing to do with government regulation.

But I'm glad these are your true colors. It makes Mrs. Clinton's victory and a multi-decade Democratic majority ever more likely.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

DA has just summed himself up.

I could only wish that your side is willing to lose, but I ain't that stupid, dude.

p.s. The "s" was missing from my quote:

• My side says the oil/energy shortage of the 1970[s] was totally contrived:

Trying to score a point with this sort of picky nit reflects more on the pretentious nitpicker than me.

I responded to the implied as well as the stated. You, on the other hand, ignored the meat and whined about the parsley. Typical behavior. :x

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Conservation and renewables are a whole lot cheaper.

David, you're missing his underlying subtext. Conservation is for wimps, and renewable energy is for sissies and girlie-men.

Oil drilling (and burning as much of the stuff as you can once it's refined) is for manly men.

The scene in "Jarhead" with the oil-drenched Marines partying in the Iraqi desert surrounded by burning derricks, raining oil, and hellish red black sky, comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I confess, I am passionately antiwar, so long as, at the end of the day, my side wins.

I think your man Christ said the same thing. :wink:

Originally Posted by Linus

[quote
Unless you believe in abiotic oil, you have to come to terms with the fact that the cost of gasoline isn't coming down again - no matter where and how much we drill.

I believe in abiotic oil, I just don't think it's going to replenish fast enough for it to mean a damn to us. I think Croaker may agree with me.

I also believe that there is an issue even more important than Peak Oil, and that is Peak Pollution -- at what point does the biosphere change states and consequently give us a VERY hard time? Even if we have "enough" oil to last us to 2075, what good would that be if our coasts move fifty miles inland and half of our arable land goes to shit?

Is this a Grey Champion move for Gore?

September 19, 2006
Gore Calls for Immediate Freeze on Heat-Trapping Gas Emissions
By ANDREW C. REVKIN


Former Vice President Al Gore called yesterday for a popular movement in the United States to seek an “immediate freeze” in heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases linked by most scientists to global warming.

Speaking at the New York University law school, Mr. Gore said that rising temperatures posed an enormous threat and that only a movement akin to the nuclear freeze campaign for arms control a generation ago, which he said he opposed at the time, would push elected officials out of longstanding deadlock on the issue.

“Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach,” Mr. Gore said. “In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done, when in fact it is not.”

President Bush has opposed requiring cuts in heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, saying a better payoff will come from a long-term effort to find or improve technologies that provide energy without emissions. The White House last night defended that approach.

“This administration is not just talking about climate change,” said Kristen A. Hellmer, a White House spokeswoman. “There are more than 60 programs in place aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions that do not hurt the economy or move jobs overseas.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the Gore proposals would create “economic calamity.”

Several representatives of industry groups said yesterday that the White House had been consulting with industry officials to consider a new energy initiative.

In his speech, Mr. Gore also renewed a longstanding proposal to replace all payroll taxes with taxes on pollution, including carbon dioxide.

Mr. Gore has ridden a wave of attention since spring over “An Inconvenient Truth,” the popular film and best-selling book built around an illustrated talk on what he calls a “planetary emergency.”

His speech in Manhattan came ahead of a burst of planned discourse on global warming this week, including five Congressional hearings and three days of workshops at the Clinton Global Initiative, which are intended to solve the biggest problems hampering international development.

Philip E. Clapp, the president of the National Environmental Trust, a Washington group pressing for limits on heat-trapping gases, said he welcomed Mr. Gore’s speech.

“There is no excuse anymore to continue to increase our emissions,” Mr. Clapp said.

I am TELLING you all: As I've been saying for years now, Al Gore is up to something. And I think I like it.

It looks like he has a moderate case of Bullworth Syndrome. He has nothing to lose by going after what he truly considers important. Yet he's doing it with tact and aplomb.

*Odin casts a thread necromancy spell on important thread*