To most Brits, Al Gore is that guy with the environmental film. To others he is also the one who got more votes than Bush but still lost anyway.
I don't know the subtle differences between Republican and Democrat policy, it always seems more personality driven, but from what i can gather, i would fall into the Democrat camp. Hillary Clinton is the current Democrat favourite but a new poll by 7news seems to suggest that Democratic voters would prefer former vice-president Al Gore to any of the declared contenders.
I have mentioned a few times how much better off the World would be if Gore had beaten Bush those few elections ago and Gore has spoke previously that he had no plans to put himself forward for nomination but he may have a change of heart with the poll showing that 29% of Ms Clinton's backers would switch their support to him.
I don't know what Gore reputation is in the States, but he has an enhanced reputation as an environmental campaigner in Europe where man-made climate change is given a much higher priority than in his homeland.
He is likely to bump up his reputation again with the Live Earth concerts which he helped to organise with eight shows held simultaneously around the world to raise awareness and funds to combat global warming.
Al Gore as President may yet become possible and the healing of the destructive Bush years can begin for both America's reputation and the environment.
14 comments:
Excellent post. I do hope Gore runs.I think his stock has risen a lot in recent years. When he was in politics, his political opponents slandered him like there was no tomorrow, and I think it affected his popularity. They still do. His administration also failed to act on a number of progressive issues when he was Vice-President, and that hurt him as well I think. I think that since he left politics and started to speak out more, especially on the environment, he has reached an iconic status in the US, and I think that the Republicans have to be afraid of him
We always like it when non-citizens choose our leaders.
Last time I checked, they don't.
Hey Cody, have you ever discussed another country's leaders with one of your friends or neighbors? That's all their doing here. Our leader effects their world - why shouldn't they have an opinion of the person we select - or THINK we select.
And yes, we've had the gall to actually choose another county's leader for them, more than once. I can't imagine why it would be okay for us to ride into Panama to arrest another nation's president but not okay for a couple Brits to discuss an election that will have worldwide impact.
We always like it when non-citizens choose our leaders.
Funny enough, exactly what the citizens of Iraq & Afghanistan said and the citzens of Palestine and Iran are saying. Or is it only OK when you do it?
Now, now, Lucy!
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we helped remove tyrants whom the people had not chosen and let them choose their own leaders.
The same was true in Panama, where Noriega had just lost the election, but refused to step down.
But Frank, did either of them get a choice of having Saddam and the Taliban removed? As i recall, both were given the option of remaining in power prior to their removal.
As Cody said, nobody likes to have non-citizens choosing their leaders for them and i was talking about doing it by a democratic election, not bombs and bullets.
Sorry Lucy, I was just being a little tounge and cheek.
God I hope you're right, Lucy!
XXX
Haha check out this spoof of Al Gore getting advice from Clinton on his dead pan personality, its hilarious [HERE]
Frank - You mean after years of propping Sadaam up with money and weapons in the 80s, we suddenly said "Oops! He wasn't chosen by the people"?
And the excuse for Noriega is he was allowing cocaine to come to America, thus breaking our laws. Funny- I never knew that he was responsible for enforcing our drug laws, or that we were responsible for enforcing their election laws. I do know that now that he is out of the way, no one in America can get cocaine. It's impossible now, isn't it?
Sadaam and Noriega are two reasons why any leader being propped up with American money needs a very good escape plan. Our good favor doesn't last forever, even if you have the oil that we value above all other things.
Good points, Joe - they suck the juice right out of the "freedom isn't free" jingoism that's all the rage among the neo-cons and dullards too lazy to think about reality. We've got the "War on Drugs" that's been a money pit for decades, now this white-hot "War on Terror" that's being executed with schoolboy aplomb. An assault on reason, indeed.
You know, what the media never understood was that Al Gore simply did not want to run again. He didn't have that fanatical life-long obsession with becoming President that most contenders do. If he had beaten Bush, by the way, this is what would have happened: http://daisybrain.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/things-that-never-happened-but-could-have/
Post a Comment