12 October 2007
On Russert and soft support, and Gore as the New Sputnik
It took this quote from NBC political hack Tim Russert to wake me up (blog-wise):
Huge percentages of potential voters remain totally undecided, even in the early primary states. And among those that have already "made up" their minds, on average OVER HALF are open to supporting another candidate. How can one conclude from that that the "Democratic base is very happy with their field of candidates"?
Yes, media men like Russert might be pulling for a Hillary candidacy. It would, after all, make their jobs far easier. They could simply pull out their notes from the late 1990s and happily regurgitate the same old "Clintons vs. the Angry Right" and "where is Monica" storylines. Russert might relish the opportunity to ponder, "Would Monica be given a cabinet position a hypothetical Clinton administration, given her extensive internship experience?" "David Broder, tell us the answer, as your words are fact and all else fiction."
Therefore, Russert chants to the Democratic base, "You are HAPPY with your candidates. So Happy. Don't worry: Be Happy, Democrats. Stay stuck in your media-centric world of hype."
Tim's statement, of course, was presented as part of his overall argument that Al Gore will not run. In Tim's uber-simplified world, satiation equals inaction, and he wants to slow our collective political metabolism to the point that Al Gore sees no need. After all, an Al Gore candidacy would be a disaster for Tim: it would likely bypass the traditional media, and it would focus on actual problems and solutions (how novel!) and not Monicagate Redux. Ratings would plummet.
I hope Al Gore stands up, shimmering with his various golden awards, hot, bothered, and ready to fight. I hope he jumps in. His entrance would not add to existing race; it would reformulate it entirely, recycling its contents into a entirely new, and ever-so-necessary dialogue on the future of the planet.
An Al Gore Campaign, and the ensuing Al Gore Presidency, would be a paradigm shifter. Moving from the Politics of Negative Definition (the scorched earth, destroy your opponent and avoid the issues paradigm), we would enter a post-political Age of Positive Action. The United States, and thus the planet, would never be the same.
Fifty years ago, when the USSR sent Sputnik up and thus launched the Space Age, the global perception of mankind's role in the universe was forever altered. I propose that an Al Gore presidency would be such an occasion, another, much-needed, point of no return.
For that I say: Run, Al, Run.
But right now the Democratic primary base is very happy with their field of candidates.Tim, you are an idiot. How do you get off making that statement? It is an outrage that your network presents you as some sort of political-know-it-all when clearly you are anything but. Anyone, even the most ardent Hillary supporter, would admit that support at this point in the Democratic primaries is very soft (see this extensive explanation for more).
Huge percentages of potential voters remain totally undecided, even in the early primary states. And among those that have already "made up" their minds, on average OVER HALF are open to supporting another candidate. How can one conclude from that that the "Democratic base is very happy with their field of candidates"?
Yes, media men like Russert might be pulling for a Hillary candidacy. It would, after all, make their jobs far easier. They could simply pull out their notes from the late 1990s and happily regurgitate the same old "Clintons vs. the Angry Right" and "where is Monica" storylines. Russert might relish the opportunity to ponder, "Would Monica be given a cabinet position a hypothetical Clinton administration, given her extensive internship experience?" "David Broder, tell us the answer, as your words are fact and all else fiction."
Therefore, Russert chants to the Democratic base, "You are HAPPY with your candidates. So Happy. Don't worry: Be Happy, Democrats. Stay stuck in your media-centric world of hype."
Tim's statement, of course, was presented as part of his overall argument that Al Gore will not run. In Tim's uber-simplified world, satiation equals inaction, and he wants to slow our collective political metabolism to the point that Al Gore sees no need. After all, an Al Gore candidacy would be a disaster for Tim: it would likely bypass the traditional media, and it would focus on actual problems and solutions (how novel!) and not Monicagate Redux. Ratings would plummet.
I hope Al Gore stands up, shimmering with his various golden awards, hot, bothered, and ready to fight. I hope he jumps in. His entrance would not add to existing race; it would reformulate it entirely, recycling its contents into a entirely new, and ever-so-necessary dialogue on the future of the planet.
An Al Gore Campaign, and the ensuing Al Gore Presidency, would be a paradigm shifter. Moving from the Politics of Negative Definition (the scorched earth, destroy your opponent and avoid the issues paradigm), we would enter a post-political Age of Positive Action. The United States, and thus the planet, would never be the same.
Fifty years ago, when the USSR sent Sputnik up and thus launched the Space Age, the global perception of mankind's role in the universe was forever altered. I propose that an Al Gore presidency would be such an occasion, another, much-needed, point of no return.
For that I say: Run, Al, Run.
Labels: al gore, russert, sputnik
¶ 1:16 PM 1 comments
20 March 2007
500,000 Strong
Al Gore will testify in Congress tomorrow regarding global warming, as previously discussed on this blog. Click this link to add your name to his message (quick and easy). He's at somewhere over 400,000 strong now, and needs you to get him to half a million.
In a related note, the Politico asks: Can Gore Let it Rip? The conclusions is, essentially, that Gore should run, and probably will, barring a definite tilt of the race toward either Obama or Clinton. As long as they are pretty much neck and neck, there is room for Gore.
In a related note, the Politico asks: Can Gore Let it Rip? The conclusions is, essentially, that Gore should run, and probably will, barring a definite tilt of the race toward either Obama or Clinton. As long as they are pretty much neck and neck, there is room for Gore.
Labels: al gore, global warming
¶ 8:41 AM 0 comments
13 March 2007
More on Gore, Iraq
I don't have time for links but wanted to give a quick update on my perceptions regarding Al Gore entering the presidential race. I still think he will; however, some of his critics have raised what I'll admit is a relevant point: Al Gore's view on Iraq. Yes, back in 2002, when it was certainly not "cool" and at times labeled "treasonous," Al Gore spoke out against the BushCo plan for invading Iraq. His primary objection to the invasion was not one along the lines of the Dennis Kucinich "Let's build a Department of Peace Instead" approach. Gore framed his own objections in a national security context: Afghanistan is far from a finished job and we simply can't abandon that endeavor. Furthermore, Gore pointed out that Bush would go into Iraq, take out Saddam, and then leave a huge mess behind that would cause even more problems. Prescient, certainly, but what else would you expect from a man who had served several terms in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President (during which he probably made more national security decisions for the country than his boss did).
The point here is that Gore in 2002 was already worrying about the consequences of making war in Iraq and then abandoning its people. Which brings us to the question at hand: what would Al Gore do in Iraq now? For a man who has had years and years of White House war room realism welded onto an idealistic soul, it would be a torturous issue. Certainly he does not want the United States to be in Iraq, something that now the vast majority of the American public agrees with him on. I think it's also likely that he does not want to abandon the Iraqi government, in what many might see as a "throwing them to the wolves" scenario. And for a man with a cause (global warming) and, above that, a new found popular relevance (not to mention, lots of new money), would seeking the White House and inheriting all of these problems really be a desirable mission?
His critics see someone who will probably back down from this challenge. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe Gore has already established himself as one of the greatest patriots our modern country has known. His tireless dedication to public service cannot be questioned. His ability to see "further down the road" than his peers has been consistently noted (for all the jokes about inventing the internet, without a doubt Gore did more to make it a reality than any other public servant). His diplomatic skill is second to none and would be essential for getting the entire region together for action on Iraq. Domestically, Gore would have to deal with negotiating a course that would be both acceptable to the anti-war majority and those who raise rightful concerns about leaving behind a terrorist hotbed. I have no idea how I would approach such a political minefield myself, but then again, I'm not the guy who single-handedly tackled global warming.
The point here is that Gore in 2002 was already worrying about the consequences of making war in Iraq and then abandoning its people. Which brings us to the question at hand: what would Al Gore do in Iraq now? For a man who has had years and years of White House war room realism welded onto an idealistic soul, it would be a torturous issue. Certainly he does not want the United States to be in Iraq, something that now the vast majority of the American public agrees with him on. I think it's also likely that he does not want to abandon the Iraqi government, in what many might see as a "throwing them to the wolves" scenario. And for a man with a cause (global warming) and, above that, a new found popular relevance (not to mention, lots of new money), would seeking the White House and inheriting all of these problems really be a desirable mission?
His critics see someone who will probably back down from this challenge. I, on the other hand, do not. I believe Gore has already established himself as one of the greatest patriots our modern country has known. His tireless dedication to public service cannot be questioned. His ability to see "further down the road" than his peers has been consistently noted (for all the jokes about inventing the internet, without a doubt Gore did more to make it a reality than any other public servant). His diplomatic skill is second to none and would be essential for getting the entire region together for action on Iraq. Domestically, Gore would have to deal with negotiating a course that would be both acceptable to the anti-war majority and those who raise rightful concerns about leaving behind a terrorist hotbed. I have no idea how I would approach such a political minefield myself, but then again, I'm not the guy who single-handedly tackled global warming.
Labels: al gore
¶ 8:27 AM 0 comments
