Woo and Hoo!
Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize (sharing it with the IPCC). This is excellent for two reasons: one, the further affirmation and momentum it gives to the importance of fighting global climate change; and two, the fact that the wingnuts are probably gnawing their own faces off this morning, both because it's Gore and because it's global warming. Fun!
"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," said Ole Danbolt Mjos, chairman of the Nobel committee.
I do kinda ::heart:: Al Gore these days. That said, the Draft Gore people need to meet reality.
Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind.
"Your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save," the group said in an open letter.
And by reality, I mean subject-verb agreement. "[A]s do your party"? Seriously, people, you pay tens of thousands of dollars to run a full-page NYT ad, and you can't hire a competent proofreader to take all of ten minutes to check the ad copy? Or just read it over yourselves? (Btw, if I'm wrong, and "party" can, in U.S. English, take a plural verb, I'd be delighted. Otherwise, these well-intentioned people are making themselves look like idiots.)
Should Al run? I'm ambivalent.
I love how he acts now, but I'm not sure he could keep it up as a candidate. I think the image-makers and consultants would get their hands on him again, and it'd be a return to the blandness of 2000. I think he and Kerry shared the same fatal flaw: they didn't hit back, and hit back hard, when the Republican smear machine put them in its sights. If he changed that, and responded effectively to attacks, he could be formidable; if not, he'd be toast. (Yes, he won in 2000, but as my dad said at the time, it shouldn't have been close enough to steal.)
Nor am I under the illusion that he could enact his environmental policy recommendations as President. He'd be constrained in what he could do and say in all kinds of ways he isn't now; by Congress, at the very least.
I think he'd make a good president, and I'd certainly consider voting for him, but I don't see him as our saviour. Moreover, as an ex-politician he has credibility saying global warming isn't a political or partisan issue. If he parlayed his Nobel win into a presidential run, he'd undermine that. I'd like to see him have a cabinet-level post of some kind, with some official power, where he could advocate for the environment.
What say you?
"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," said Ole Danbolt Mjos, chairman of the Nobel committee.
I do kinda ::heart:: Al Gore these days. That said, the Draft Gore people need to meet reality.
Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind.
"Your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save," the group said in an open letter.
And by reality, I mean subject-verb agreement. "[A]s do your party"? Seriously, people, you pay tens of thousands of dollars to run a full-page NYT ad, and you can't hire a competent proofreader to take all of ten minutes to check the ad copy? Or just read it over yourselves? (Btw, if I'm wrong, and "party" can, in U.S. English, take a plural verb, I'd be delighted. Otherwise, these well-intentioned people are making themselves look like idiots.)
Should Al run? I'm ambivalent.
I love how he acts now, but I'm not sure he could keep it up as a candidate. I think the image-makers and consultants would get their hands on him again, and it'd be a return to the blandness of 2000. I think he and Kerry shared the same fatal flaw: they didn't hit back, and hit back hard, when the Republican smear machine put them in its sights. If he changed that, and responded effectively to attacks, he could be formidable; if not, he'd be toast. (Yes, he won in 2000, but as my dad said at the time, it shouldn't have been close enough to steal.)
Nor am I under the illusion that he could enact his environmental policy recommendations as President. He'd be constrained in what he could do and say in all kinds of ways he isn't now; by Congress, at the very least.
I think he'd make a good president, and I'd certainly consider voting for him, but I don't see him as our saviour. Moreover, as an ex-politician he has credibility saying global warming isn't a political or partisan issue. If he parlayed his Nobel win into a presidential run, he'd undermine that. I'd like to see him have a cabinet-level post of some kind, with some official power, where he could advocate for the environment.
What say you?