The Astonishing Eleanor
Tell me, now, with a straight face, if you can manage it: is anyone in the pundit class more consistently clueless than Eleanor Clift? Not as mean-spirited as Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, she serves more as an amusing barometer of ‘unconventional’ conventional wisdom that is almost invariably 100% wrong. Her latest horse-laugher regards Al Gore and his quest for the gold by way of the green:
Getting the country to face up to global warming is his life’s mission, and it could be his ticket to the presidency. Voters yearning for a principled leader who truly believes in something may find what they’re looking for in the former vice president. Gore told NEWSWEEK that he’s in the middle of a campaign, but it’s not a campaign for a candidate. “Been there, done that,” he said.
Nobody believes him. By not playing the overt political game, Gore may be putting in place the first issue-driven campaign of the 21st century, one that is premised on a big moral challenge that is becoming more real with soaring gas prices and uncertain oil supplies. A senior Democrat who once ran for the White House himself but harbors no illusions the party will turn to him in 2008 looks at Gore and marvels, “This guy is running the best campaign I’ve seen for president.”
Whether he is or isn’t running almost doesn’t matter. Gore has the luxury of waiting until late in the political season to announce. He has universal name recognition, a proven ability to raise money, and he can tap into the MoveOn.org machinery to launch a grass-roots campaign. Unlike front runner Hillary Clinton, there is no doubt about where Gore stands and what he believes in. He opposed the Iraq war, he was against the Patriot Act and he spoke out forcefully against President Bush’s torture policies and warrantless eavesdropping.
The individual carping I could do about the above is easily subsumed in a single observation: Clift is talking about Gore’s appeal to the Nutroots®, essentially, and using that as a basis for extrapolating a victory in the general election.
And that‘s the funniest thing I’ve read in quite some time…
Gore’s chance of getting the Democratic nod (since I haven’t done any candidate profile updates in a while)? 6-1 against…his chance of winning the presidency: 11-1 against…
The Democratic Party will be running against the high price of gasoline for the next decade. So why should they pick a candidate that has spent his political life complaining that gas is too cheap, that for our and our children’s good we need to add a $ .50 or $ 1.00 per gallon tax in order to lower the use of the internal combustion engine?
I can see his campaign slogan now:
“If you are tired of high prices vote for me and I’ll raise them for your own good.”
Truly excellent point, Fred…
Or to paraphrase an old anti-Cuomo slogan:
Vote for Al Gore, we haven’t been punished enough!
I like her anonymous quote from a “senior Democrat” who once ran for president. Well, that could be Ted Kennedy, that could be Fritz Mondale, that could be Bill Bradley, etc. It’s hard to say whether the comment comes from someone with some historic political acumen or someone who has a long career of tilting at windmills.
Of course, given the “no illusions line,” I guess that means it’s not John Kerry.
Gore ain’t running. Yes, there’s certainly a logic to him running, but I think he’s purely in the crusader game these days. He probably hopes to get named as some ambassador at large on the global environment in some future Democratic administration.
She is completely clueless on every issue I have ever heard her comment on. She is the single reason I stopped reading Newsweek.
If Al Gore is planning to run again he might want to be careful about what he says (if he wants to win that is). This film is filled with exagerations just like everything else that comes out of this man’s mouth. His exagerations cost him last time and they may do it again.
Yea, Gore’s credibility is not so much cemented with his movie…that stuff about the snow melting on Kilimanjaro?–total BS, according to scientists who actually study this stuff. They say that the snow melt is due to the cutting of the the forests surrounding the mountain. And while I wholeheartedly agree that we need to take care of the planet, I have a hard time getting worked up about global warming when 30 years ago, psuedo-scientists were screaming about global cooling. The temperature of the Earth fluxuates but I’m not sure it’s cause for panic and Gore’s involvement in the cause makes me even less inclined to beleive.
happydays, I am definitely concerned about the environment (who isn’t?), but I have to agree that the film seems to have a lot of exaggerations… this from a guy who has a history of overstating things. I don’t feel like it’s responsible for people like Gore to get Americans all worked up over something that scientists don’t even agree on.
Gore isn’t running for President, he’s running for relevancy. He has no real job so his income is derived from maintaining some kind of status. Global warming is his ticket to big bucks on the speaker/appearance circuit.
There are serious questions regarding global warming. I know a lot of people believe that it is settled science but that simply isn’t so. As noted above, it wasn’t long ago (in historical terms) that all the talk was of global cooling. And how to explain other periods of historically warmer or colder temperatures, such as in the middle ages, as being man made? How can our current situation be due to one thing while the exact same situation several hundred years ago was due to something else all together?
Usually the answer is much simpler than assumed. Just like with Kilimanjaro it’s easier to prey on Western guilt than blame the locals for not taking care of their resources.
so what are you saying, colin–that we should take global warming seriously, but not al gore?