Global warming is definitely the single issue I'm concerned with! I've been daydreaming about something very close to this. I'm imagining that the candidate that secures the nomination, before they even talk about a running mate, announces that they plan to create a new cabinet post: Secretary of the Environment. Guess who they have walk out from behind the curtain?

That's the time for all those donations, when they will overwhelm the republican candidate, not when they will overwhelm other democratic candidates.

Global Warming. Again? Y A W N ! ! !

Question: How is Viagra like global warming?

Answer: Some people talk about it all the time, but half the population think it's overrated and wish it would go away.

Single issue politics.. I hate it! How about war and peace? How about medical care for everyone? How about feeding your family? How about a job?

Global Warming is the most important issue of the last 1,000 years, second only to the Y2K computer glitch that almost shut down the whole world a few years ago. Praise be to the forward thinking computer nerds, who (like the Global Warming nerds of today) protected us from certain doom.

Check out the New York Times article on Global Warming by John Tierney. The end is near.

Firstly, Al Gore won't endorse the same candidate that John Kerry has endorsed, so that rules Barack Obama out. Secondly, Hillary Clinton has already showed in her Senate voting record, and her current policies that she is the closest match Al Gore. Therefore, if Al Gore is serious about the environment, then he should endorse the candidate that most suits his own environmental views as soon as possible, and that is Hillary Clinton. If he doesn't do this, then I will begin to have doubts about how important the environment really is to Al Gore.

Firstly, Al Gore won't endorse the same candidate that John Kerry has endorsed, so that rules Barack Obama out. Secondly, Hillary Clinton has already showed in her Senate voting record, and her current policies that she is the closest match Al Gore. Therefore, if Al Gore is serious about the environment, then he should endorse the candidate that most suits his own environmental views as soon as possible, and that is Hillary Clinton. If he doesn't do this, then I will begin to have doubts about how important the environment really is to Al Gore.

If at first you are not convincing, then try try again, twice. I smell a Hill-Shill.

All of the major Democrats basically agree on the problem of global warming and what to do about it, so there is no incentive to emphasized the issue in the primary campaign. Once we hit the general election, things are probably going to be different - even if it is McCain for the GOP.

Great article! I have blog about global warming if u like to take a look! http://www.220kg.com/blogs/Globalwarming/

Al Gore endorse Hillary Clinton? If he did that, I think I might need oxygen.

Seriously, Stephanie Obama is a truly inspirational leader who, unlike Hillary, has the potential to avoid polarizing the country and thereby create another four years of gridlock. Why should anyone refrain from endorsing him simply because John Kerry endorsed him? I'm not a huge Kerry fan (I voted for Edwards in my state's 2004 primary, for example), but it's not like the guy is Goebbels. And even if he were, what does that have to do with Obama's fitness for the White House? Kerry is merely one a bazillion people who recognize in Obama a legitimate reason for hope.

Three Questions: what kind of populist lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion? What kind of environmentalist clear cuts his land to make room for the mansion? What kind of man runs for political office when his wife is being treated for cancer?

Answer: John Edwards.

Edwards isn't Goebbels because chasing ambulances was much more lucrative than doing P/R for a demagogue.

Hiding behind a fake name, the courageous Mow Meow reveals his/her ignorance by denigrating John Edwards with right-wing talking points, including the "ambulance chaser" cannard.

So it's "ambulabnce chasing" to be the only attorney who will risk taking on cases nobody else wanted, and then miraculously winning by proving the company not only manufactured a harmful product, but that it knew it was harmful --because the product had previously killed other people -- and failed to act.

Like most cowardly conservative trolls, Mow Meow believes the only people who should be rewarded for their work are corporate CEOs.

How sad it must be to live an an ignorant, mean, little world like Mow Meow's.

Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jan 13, 2008 10:50:58 PM

yes, Stephanie, we all know what a petty man Al Gore is. of course, he won't be in the same room as John Kerry.

Stephanie says: I don't agree with you T.A Barnhart that Al Gore is a petty many, as soon as John Kerry endorsed Brack Obama, it was quite clear that Al Gore wasn't going to endorse the same candidate, so it then became a question of if and when he will endorse Clinton. The most important reason of course is because Hillary Clinton more closely matches Al Gore on her past Senate voting record on the environment, and with her current environmental policy. Obama doesn't have much of a Senate voting record, and he rarely discusses any policies as everybody knows. Clinton also more closely matches Al Gore on foreign trade and foreign policy, social issues, and the domestic economy than any of the other candidates from any party, so again, if Al Gore is serious about the economy, and all other issues, then he should endorse Clinton now. It's quite simple really.

New York Times-Global Warming by John Tierney

Very good article.

What I don't understand is why seemingly none of the progressives here are effected by it's reality check content. There's some pretty hefty, backed up, stuff there which seriously calls into question Al Gore's entire thesis. Hard to ignore. So what gives? There has to be a subsative explanation for avoiding what reads as an emerging body of establishment science that refutes most if not all of the IPCC/Gore hysteria campaign. And with the growing reversal of accepted science would it not be fairly reckless for a candidate to hitch their campaign to who may, within the campaign cycle, be shown to have been misrepresenting the masses on a global scale. Suppose this NYT article is one of many upcoming pieces with established science experts and organizations refuting Gore? Is there not some point where it can't look good or be good for the champions of the hysteria?

I mean there's only so much they can claim was fabricated by oil interests before they become tainted as looking somewhat foolish.

Good NYT article.

Why doesn't any of it's reality check content effect any progressives here?

Pretty hefty, backed up stuff there.

Suppose more of these pieces appear more regularily and contain more and more established science and science organizations refuting Gore?

There's only so much you can disregard as fabricated by oil interests.

So would it not be reckless for a candidate to hitch their campaign to someone who may be shown, during the campaign cycle, to have misrepsresented science and misled the masses on a global scale?

Kevin, is there no discussion that you can't make into a Novick/Merkley thing?

I don't think Al Gore would base his potential endorsement decision on something as silly as Obama's current list of supporters - and that was TA's tongue in cheek point in saying that Gore is really that petty.

I think if nothing else, the endorsements that Obama is receiving are evidence of the fact that he can attract support from all regions, and all of the different factions of our party.

He's won endorsements from John Kerry, whom I think we can all see as part of the establishment wing of the party. He has also won the endorsement of Lamont, who successfully won in a Democratic Primary as an attempt to take out Joe (you can't get more establishment than that) Liebermann, too.

It is disappointing that global warming hasn't been a significant issue in the primaries so far. I happen to think it is an extremely important issue...one that is not getting enough attention by the political (as well as business) elites.

As to the John Tierney blog on global warming...what I got out of it was a critique of fearmongering on the issue, not that we should ignore it or not be concerned about it. My read of his blog is first... that articles and advocates are associating single weather events like Katrina to global warming to shake people up and that it is not intellectually honest to do so. My own understanding of global warming and weather is that single events like Katrina or the monster storm that hit California recently cannot be attributed to global warming ...only that the probability of such events increases as the earth's temperature rises.

There is a subtle or not so subtle distinction there...but I "get" the impulse to stir the pot on the issue. I mean, with all the "fearmongering" by global warming activists and stooge journalists, its still not an issue in the election...which is the point of Evan Manvel's piece.

Can't speak for TA here, Stephanie, but what I'd like to know is your souce for the statement above.

Well Pat, Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, and not John Kerry, so therefore I find it highly unlikely that he would endorse the same candidate that John Kerry has endorsed. Al Gore didn't even endorse John Kerry in the presidential election when Dubya was the alternative! That says a lot.

John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running-mate in 2004, yet instead of endorsing his former running-mate, he flip-flopped and decided to endorse one of his opponents, Barack Obama, instead. That says a lot regarding the choices that Kerry makes, so a Kerry endorsement to me is irrelevant.

That said, shouldn't an endorsement be about policies anyway? I understand that Barack Obama doesn't have a platform, and policies and very little Senate voting history, and that he is rhetorically talented on stories such about hope, change, Moses, Joshua, blah, blah, blah. Some consider him to be inspirational, but some also consider Dr. Phil and Tony Robbins to be inspirational, but I don't want neither to be president either thanks.

I want the Democratic nomination to be about policy, ideas and ability, and on policies, Hillary Clinton matches Al Gore the closest on foreign policy, foreign trade, social issues, domestic economy, and the environment. Not one of those issues, but all of them. Forget the Kerry endorsement, but on current policy and on Senate voting history, then Al Gore should be endorsing Hillary Clinton as soon as possible because she most closely matches him on all policies.

At the risk of hijacking this from an Al Gore endorsement thread into a global warming thread, I'm intrigued by the John Tierney writings that have been referenced above. There's an interesting one from February 2006 that links global warming doomsayers to evangelical Christians, not only because of their common interest in protecting the environment but also for the spiritual prism through which they view global warming.

Which got me thinking: All reasonable people know that the earth is warming up, and that a portion of that warming is due to human behavior. But the apocalyptic vision of what a warmer future holds seems less about scientific projection than public relations. (I.e., People will only adopt the necessary environmental laws and regulations if they're terrified of the alternative.)

So bringing this back to the 2008 election, whether you believe the environmental apocalypse is coming or not, talking about it is probably a poor election strategy that may result in a backlash. Far better is to build on the expanding "sustainability" ethos that is growing in many parts of the country. People generally are coming to see the reduction of waste and pollution and the preservation of nature as the "right" things to do, even if there are some economic consequences. I'd far prefer that the Democratic candidate run on that less ambitious platform and win than run on an apocalyptic platform and lose.

All three Democrats mostly match Gore on the issues. The big exception is that Clinton has been out of step with Gore on Iraq (though she is getting better). All of the candidates would make good Presidents, and simply repeating talking points does not move the debate forward. To ignore Obama's substantial experience and policy positions is simply unfair, just as it is unfair to ignore the historical significance of the first female President.

As for your argument about endorsement, you have no evidence, just conjecture, which is fine, but it is not evidence. Kerry snubbing Edwards means nothing via Gore; Gore, remember, snubbed his VP (Lieberman) when he endorsed Dean.

All three Democrats mostly match Gore on the issues.

That's not true at all! Where did you get that info from? On foreign trade, Rudy Guiliani actually matches closest with Gore, while Clinton matches closest of the Democratic candidates. On foreign policy, Clinton matches closest of all candidates. On social issues, Clinton matches closest of all candidates. On the economy, Clinton matches closest of all candidates. On the environment, which is most important as far as Gore is concerned, Clinton matches closest of all candidates. To top that off, Gore will not endorse the same candidate that Kerry endorsed in my opinion.

I have no doubt that Gore has already decided that if he endorses someone, then it will be Clinton, but now it's just a matter of whether he will do it. If he is serious about the environment, and the other issues as well, then he should do it as soon as possible.

I absolutely agree that Global Warming is a critical issue. Since I see Edwards as the only candidate who refuses PAC contributions, I see Edwards as the only one who's telling the truth about his goals regarding the many faceted problem of Global Warming and other environmental issues. ALL the others have promises to keep to their corporate contributors.

But I believe the key issue, by the time the election rolls around, will be the economy...the stimulation of which many voters perceive to be in conflict with the changes needed to reverse global warming. In traditionally blue collar areas they may pragmatically feel that industry should be allowed to continue with environmental trangressions as long as those industies are providing employment. Of course industry squeals like a pig and threatens closing (more)factories etc, if they are forced to adopt earth-friendly practices. Taking yet more jobs overseas.

But I see the possibility of sweeping change and economic growth in the logical moves we must make to slow global warming and stop poisoning ourselves...all these issues are linked. I believe that incentives and grants for the myriad practices and products that are the road to a healthy future can create thousands of new industries and jobs...right here in the US, not on foreign soils or at sweatshop wages. It could be bigger than high tech has been in the past 25 years!

It was John Edwards who spoke first of the opportunity for a boon in the green sector...as usual Obama and Clinton echoed him. I hope Al Gore doesn't miss that fact.

But I think the environment will probably NOT be the most important factor for voters if there is a recession at election time....and there will be. And addressing Global Warming will be a much harder road without the engagement and the committment of middle Americans damanding a cleaner, safer and healthier planet and an end to corporate waivers on environmental issues. They must themselves be willing and able to afford to make the needed changes. For global warming to be a voter issue, they will really HAVE to really care as much about that as they do about feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads.

Policy, ideas and ability....middle America is not as informed on the vague nuances as are readers here....after all most of the candidates are speaking in canned platitudes, with no mention of how they will pay for all this Change. Middle America will vote for the candidate who promises financial relief. Jobs. A chicken in every pot. Whether the candidate can deliver or not. Sadly the environment will probably be a side-bar.

Stephanie, you're not embarrassed to write all that?

Read my lips...not in the slightest! I have absolutely, and positively no doubt that Al Gore would not endorse the same candidate that John Kerry has endorsed. How can I make that any clearer?

I have absolutely, and positively no doubt that Al Gore's current political stance regarding foreign trade, foreign policy, domestic economy, social issues, and the environment closely matches Hillary Clinton. How can I make that any clearer?

Have you actually read Al Gore's book from last year; The Assault on Reason? I have, and it's quite clear to me that Al Gore would not endorse a candidate that fails to discuss policy and does not have a political platform. It is also quite clear from that book that his political views more closely match Clinton's Senate voting history and current policies than any other Democratic candidate and that has not changed in recent years.

Again, I am sure that on all issues, Al Gore has already decided that Hillary Clinton is the candidate that he will endorse, and he will do so if she wins the nomination. It's just a matter now whether he will do it before then, and if he is serious about the environment, and the rest of the current political climate, then he should do it soon.

Uh, just what would YOU do as your part to the supposed global warming crisis? How about we stop using gasoline and diesel fuels as of tomorrow. It would be worth it, right?

This is a good example of another bicyclist blowing hot air and pedaling out of control to support Al Gore’s sensationalizing view of global warming. This socialistic elitist point of view has been designed to strike fear in the populous. The fear is then used by the greedy affluent who can afford to maintain their lavish lifestyles and financially support socialist government officials that in turn will dictate to and control middle and working class peoples, often through the use of tax codes and mandates. Bicyclists generally support this self serving agenda because it allows them to maintain their status quo of poaching funding from the same middle and working class taxpayers rather than directly paying their own fair share way in user fees for the bicycle infrastructure they use and want increased.

The green agenda has been jumped on by the media because it currently sells newspapers. However, the biggest issue in the up coming election is the economy. The global warming agenda is in direct conflict with maintaining an overall vibrant economy as is now being demonstrated with the head winds of the forthcoming economic recession. No amount of bicycle babble hot air rhetoric will change that. Recovery is going to take CHANGE that revives the US auto industry, revitalizes the US housing market and rebuilds the US industrial base, all of which will help to reverse the trend of family wage jobs and financial resources being sent overseas.

Furthermore, if the primary cause of global warming is truly man caused, the scientists and the politicians would all be calling for limitations to population growth rather just calling for regressive lifestyle changes. They are not because there is no absolute proof global warming is actually man caused. It is for the most part a natural occurrence. The proof is right here in Oregon where the melting of the ice age millenniums ago created the Columbia River Gorge. That too was global warming, in part caused by the volcanoes around the world; and so far nobody has discovered petrified millennium old SUVs in the in the rock faces of the gorge walls. In conclusion, any able minded person that truly believes in democracy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the personal freedoms that built this great nation, as opposed to excessive taxation, socialistic mandates and dictatorial controls, that able minded person will vote against the Al Gore political doctrine. Furthermore, that reason alone may very well explain why George Bush was elected in the first place. It wasn’t a vote for Bush, it was simply a vote against Al Gore.

Setting aside every other problem with your argument, Bush lost to Gore.

I passed a 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 3.0 liter diesel engine. The driver's door was painted with the "The City that Works" logo, but the passenger door had a "Tri-Met" sticker on it.

Granted, it retails for $39,000 and doesn't get any better mileage than a V-6 gasoline model. But who cares about mileage, when you're burning biodiesel. I guess I should be glad they didn't buy the Benz.

How many Portland taxpayers can afford $39k for a new car?

And why aren't they all taking the bus?

lestatdelc the tool says...

Can you please STFU.

Is that a question sunshine or a statement? If it is a question, then no of course not. :)

Nobody gives a rat ass about your inane blather

I take it that you're speaking for yourself?

lestatdelc the tool says...

about what endorsements Gore is prevented form making due to the bizzaro world "reasoning" that goes on nowhere but in your fevered mind, none of which has anything to do with the topic of this thread

Sounds like someone is a little upset. Ha ha ha ha! :D Come on now. There is no need for hostility and personal insults regarding free speech about something that is in fact the topic of the thread, regardless of what you may think.

Thanks though for your thoughtful input on the matter, and your intelligent debate! Have a nice life now! :)

Chris Lowe says...

Stephanie, you've made it quite clear what your opinion is. Just not whether there's any reason to agree with it.

Which part? That Clinton matches closest of the Democrats to Al Gore on foreign policy, foreign trade, energy and environment, social issues and the economy? The info regarding Al Gore's political views are available online, as well as in his book, just as they are for Clinton, Edwards, and Obama (or lack thereof in his case). I think it's pretty clear that Clinton matches Gore on all of those issues more than any other Democratic candidate.

Chris Lowe says...

If you're right that Gore won't endorse Obama because of Kerry, you're wrong that Gore isn't petty.

I really think that is just an added reason, and not the sole reason, so therefore it wouldn't be petty. I believe that the main reason that Al Gore wouldn't endorse Barack Obama is because Hillary Clinton is the closest match to his own political views. Absolutely no doubt about it in fact.

Can any of the leading candidates of either party be expected to do something substantial about global warming, given that both business and labor are stuck in the eternal growth economic model?

If you want a candidate who would do more than blow more hot air, check out the ones the corporate media black-balled: Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.

"It wasn’t a vote for Bush, it was simply a vote against Al Gore."

Better to be BUSH wacked upside the head than to be GORED (bored?) to death.

"Setting aside every other problem with your argument, Bush lost to Gore."

Yes, sad but true. And the last 7 years have been such a pleasant experience under the Gore administration.... oh wait, Bush has been President the last 7 years!!

You must be a BDS troll. I probably should have just ignored you, but too late now.

Did you mean the popular vote? Bush lost to Gore there by 3M votes. So what? Please brush up on the Electoral College. Also, bone up on how and when each state needs to elect their electors, especially Florida. Maybe a lesson in court cases, such as Bush vs Gore would help.

An indicator that nothing will be done about global warming in the next five years?

Ahhhh! You cursed rat, look what you've done! I'm melting... melting. What a world, what a world!"

Antarctica Lost More Ice in Last 10 Years: Study

Wow. What a thread.

I have read all of Gore's books, and even completed a thesis on moving from a "cowboy" economy to a "spaceship" economy (consumption vs. conservation) using his ideas as a central construct. I spent MONTHS with the work and am therefore familiar with the way Gore thinks.

Having said that, there is NO WAY I could begin to make a statement so bold as Stepanie made when she suggests that only an endorsement of Hillary means that Gore is SERIOUS about his environmental stands and beliefs!

All dues Stephanie, but the notion that if Gore fails to endorse YOUR candidate, he repudiates his life's work is sublime for it's utter lack of substance. Gore knows he can play the role of king/queen maker here, and if he employs the sort of decision-making he has exhibited over time, he will select the candidate that:

1) Submits proposals that he thinks are valid and worthwhile, but most importantly;

2) Has a chance of ACTUALLY INSPIRING the leadership to affect the ID's changes.

Is that HRC? Is it McCain? Is it BO? That's for Al to decide...not Stephanie.

Under this set of criteria, regardless of WHOM I support, my guess is that Gore will endorse Obama.

Rob

You're back-pedaling, Stephanie. In your initial post, Gore not selecting Obama because of Kerry was your primary point... and now you want to say it's just an additional reason? I agree with some of the other posts -- who Gore endorsed previously most likely has little bearing on his selection process this go-round. Many people believe that John Kerry was not the best candidate for the Democratic election in 2004 and Howard Dean was supposedly going to be the rising star. And Gore isn't backing Kerry, he's backing the presidential candidate of his choice. Kerry not endorsing Edwards, who was his former running mate, shouldn't be a surprise either. Obama wasn't well enough known to be chosen as a running mate in 2004 (not to mention that I don't think VP is Obama's style), and Edwards is widely recognized as having a fading chance of winning the democratic nomination. Kerry -- as I believe Gore could believe too, without hesitation regarding the current superdelegate list -- acknowledges that Obama is the best candidate for the presidency in this election, with the unifying power of the people behind him necessary to inspire deep, committed change on a wide variety of topics. Regardless of how to the letter Clinton's voting record matches up with his ideas, Obama's are going to be similar and if elected would provide Gore with the best coat tails to ride for environmental change.

First off, none of us here really knows what criterion Al Gore will bring to the table for a potential endorsement. Yes, he is a champion for climate change awareness and the altering of our consumption habits and energy habits. That's not ALL he is, and any endorsement he gives, or does not give, I can promise you will go through a very lengthy and carefully considered process of which we are not aware, nor should we be.

Second, any claim that a personal issue would cloud his judgment on something as important as an official personal endorsement for President is being dishonest with themselves, and the rest of us. It's patently ridiculous on its face. This is a man who has buried long standing political grudges in order to work on the topic of climate change full time, and speaks regularly to all comers. He has become completely non partisan on this topic, even while remaining a respected member of the Democratic party. No, neither his personal nor political life will influence this decision for him.

Third, for those climate change disbelievers I submit to you that it doesn't matter AT ALL if the scientists who are researching this issue are completely correct about the severity and/or imminence of this problem. The underlying factors that govern climate change are the same factors that have been holding us back as a species for the past 100 years: greed and corruption with regards to energy. What people don't seem to get is that at the bottom of the entire world's economy is Energy, and until we go towards a more distributed method of producing it for both transport and power, we will eternally be in the thrall of small, well funded and connected monied interests whom do not have our best interests at heart. THIS is why you have monied interests fighting the perception of climate change.. not because its not real, but because if every American suddenly put solar panels on their houses and bought hybrid or electric cars that they were recharging FROM those panels, they would all go bankrupt. Think of it: You could produce, right now, enough energy to fuel an electric car for a round trip commute of over 100 miles just through solar/wind on your house (in most places). I know. I've done the calculations for MY house, and it's not that big, nor do I have a lot of land. On MY house, I could cover the roof with solar and put up two wind turbines and have enough energy to recharge any electric car I might have overnight. That means my house would be off the grid, and my CAR would be off the pipeline. And it's not that expensive.

In the end, this is what matters. I am fighting for climate change to be perceived as a big issue not because I think we can do that much about it, but because it will put incentives out that will allow individuals to break the grip of big oil and power on their lives, and return the economy to Americans.

In regard to this issue I have to admit that there is not such a big difference between candidates on the dem side. So at some point Al Gore may endorse Obama, Clinton or Edwards.

The thing to have in mind is that endorsements are complex matter, not at single easy thing.

The one that endorses has few things at stake and she/he may loose or win with the endorsement.

If it is a simple thing, like to decide who has the closest afinity to Gore, I would say Kucinich must be the one Gore has to endorse. In doing so, he can give some valuable credit to Kucinich while avoiding the difficulties of choosing between Obama and Clinton.

On the other hand, endorsing Clinton may prove fatal to Gore in view of the poor performance of Clinton in the public opinion and the last debate. Clinton is nothing but falling. It is true, she is falling in a safe parachute, but is falling.

Obama has, interesting to note, the most sound environmental proposal from the three front runners. If Gore endorses Obama, that will be a win for Gore, and Obama will benefit from that surely. Now, I do think that Obama don't really need Gore endorsement. Gore may have more to win with it than Obama himself.

TB and ChuyCP -- ooo, very well articulated. Thanks.

Hmmm, sounds like Stephanie drank a couple extra servings of the kool-aid...

"I understand that Barack Obama doesn't have a platform..." -Stephanie

You seem reasonably intelligent, so it seems to me you're smarter than being able to think, write, or communicate such a silly statement.

It's this kind of supporter for ANY candidate that got Hillary in the sticky race situation that Barack and Hillary graciously put to rest in last night's debate.

Your expression of blind faith in Mrs. Clinton is dirtying up your own candidate. If you can't see that, you're not LISTENING to your candidate, or anyone else. And as such, your argument weakens when one must look past subtle invective to find your point.

Please see Charlie Burr's post, and this time THINK more about it. LCV doesn't give ratings like that frivously.

Oh, The Weather Outside is Frightful.

I sure hope Global Warming gets here soon: it's cold out there!

Ohhh Baby it's Cold Outside!

MESSAGE

MESSAGE