I get accused of "hero worshiping" Gore, which I don't think is right, but I do have immense respect for the guy, so I thought I'd say why.
Even now, I don't think people appreciate what a punch in the gut the 2000 election was for Gore. The previous eight years had been spent in the shadow of a pol who had the charm and magnetism Gore lacked, but Clinton did not share Gore's passion for the environment, wasn't willing to put his ass on the line for it, and his poor discipline and unforced errors left much of the rest of their shared agenda unfulfilled. 2000 was Gore's chance to finally control his own fate, to rise to the test for which he had been preparing almost his entire life.
Then he walked into a slow motion disaster: got terrible advice, had to fend off a third-party run from the left, endured a hail of antagonism, caricature, and mockery from the press (right-wing and mainstream), got very little support from the Democratic establishment, and ran a hesitant, confused campaign. He still managed to get more votes, yet defeat came nonetheless, in the most arbitrary, unjust way possible.
He had to step aside and watch the presidency go to a callow, incurious silver spoon who'd been a shiftless drunk 'til the age of 40. With some justification, he saw himself as a victim, but he got no support from his party -- most Democrats abandoned or disdained him. On top of it all, he was more or less broke. Who knows what stew of shame, anger, and regret he must have faced afterward.
He could have withdrawn completely. He could have taken a cushy job in a think tank or university somewhere, or stayed at home writing books. Who among us wouldn't have?
It says something about his character that Gore went through the ringer, got up, dusted himself off, and tried to figure how best he could be of use. The solid ground that led him out of the fog was the one constant in his professional life: public service. He'd always tried to make the world a better place. In doing so, he has struggled against his own limitations, his inwardness and introversion, his prosaic style of speaking, his inability to appear comfortable in his own skin in public, his uncanny ability to inspire mockery even among those he is trying to serve. In spite of all of it, he has never retreated into the shell of cynicism that protects so many of us. He has always continued to care and to try, as best he could, to serve.
So it was to service he turned after his bitter loss. He fired up his little slideshow and trudged out in the world to try to get people concerned about a danger he believes could end civilization. In those early years there was no glamour. He was playing to rooms of dozens, or hundreds, not thousands. He wasn't being feted, he was flying coach. Global warming wasn't on the agenda. He never could have anticipated awards or acclaim.
I don't mean to paint Gore as a saint, or say there's no ego or calculation behind his actions. Human beings are complicated. But the explanation of his life that makes the most sense, that requires the fewest pop-psychological speculations and conspiracy theories, is that he's a decent, committed human being. He kept plodding on, kept trying, until he got it right. What finally worked for him was artless, unapologetic sincerity. This irony-armored reality TV world goes piss poorly on sincerity. I won't apologize for being inspired by its improbable success.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
plum Posted 7:22 pm
15 Oct 2007
I like much of Krugman's take on "Gore Derangement Syndrome", and Jonathon Chait's idea of him being the anti-Bush. Gore has become symbolic not just of global warming activism, but of a broadly liberal world view. He's not perfect, but he's someone we on the left can be proud of.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:02 am
16 Oct 2007
Look at Obama's sell out on energy and Hillary's very understated approach.
Gore could beat "911 hero" Guliani, what with the fundamentalist right splintering off to back an anti-abortion, pro-theocracy, oil crusading candidate.
But with Hillary having the clear momentum of the first woman president, can we afford to take the chance of another fixed election? The supreme court would install the "911 hero" given any excuse.
We need a landslide to insure that doesn't happen again. Florida and Ohio are still wide open to election fraud. No reform has taken place in either place. The tactics used in the last two elections are now standard procedure for the pubs in all 50 states.
Move voting machines around to insure 6 to 8 hour waits at the polls in democratic areas. Declare voters in democratic areas ineligible to vote, tamper with voting machines to manipulate the results, and declare votes for democrats hanging chads. All great tactics never successfully challenged in court by democratic legal muscle.
Then there are the GOP tv and radio networks ready to swiftboat democrats.
We need a landslide to win. Hillary can deliver that. I guess Al could not, even though he would make the best leader.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:59 am
16 Oct 2007
who can't even string a grammatically correct sentence together in his native tongue.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Baby Boomer Posted 3:37 am
16 Oct 2007
He's not perfect, but he has the resume, the intelligence and the backbone to make a better president than we've seen since Eisenhower and Roosevelt. But, I wouldn't wish that on this good man for the world.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:10 am
16 Oct 2007
Really, this is very good, DR, and I pretty much agree with you on everything. I certainly join you in your sympathy for Al Gore, and for the same reasons that you give.
That Gore was not well supported by other Democrats in 2000 is an interesting subject that deserves more examination. My feeling is, that had less to do with personal animosity against Gore, as with their uncertainty about where the blemished Clinton legacy left them, and what Gore's place in that was.
For that matter, I am puzzled that Gore so radically distanced himself from Clinton during that campaign, especially after he forthrightly had stood on the White House lawn, surrounded by all the Congressional Democrats, at the height of L'Affaire Lewinsky, and said that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents that this country has ever had. I cannot help feeling that if he had ignored the anti-Clinton sentiment of many in the electorate, and had asked Clinton to campaign with him, he would have done better than he in fact did -- with a much more satisfactory result for the whole world.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
cieldumort Posted 6:19 pm
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
wren7 Posted 6:28 am
17 Oct 2007
The only laugh I've gotten out of this sorry excuse for a President's occupancy of the White House has been the various "Bush calendars" with daily quotes which prove that the man could not have possibly graduated from a university (wasn't it Harvard? Yale?) on his own.
Permalink
mrLee Posted 12:26 pm
17 Oct 2007
Permalink
arty Posted 3:01 pm
17 Oct 2007
Tom Byrne Illustration
http://www.tombyrne.com
Tom Byrne Paintings
http://www.tjbyrne.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:02 pm
17 Oct 2007
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10 ...
20/20" co-anchor John Stossel is going on the attack against "experts" who warn about manmade global warming - along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.
...
Stossel said it's "nonsense" for Gore to suggest that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.
"The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.
"I suspect that next year's government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
mrLee Posted 10:53 pm
17 Oct 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:50 am
18 Oct 2007
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
For you are the first honest Gorian at Grist.
This is what I have surmised is the real "argument" behind this all. The argument is:
"Bush did it; so why can't we."
As in, Bush used a spurious argument (WMD) to go into Iraq and spend money for guns; so why can't we make an equally absurd argument (AGW) to spend money on butter.
And yes, I kind of agree with that line of reasoning...there are things in this world that must be done, and the general populace is just too ignorant to be told "the facts"; therefore one must use Fire & Brimstone to get them to church.
WMD is such fire; and I have admitted as such in my blog (http://you-read-it-here-first.com); so I am glad that at least one member of the majority party is willing to admit to brimstone: the War in Iraq being a necessity as is cleaning up pollution.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
RDean Posted 11:44 pm
22 Oct 2007
Permalink
RDean Posted 12:08 am
23 Oct 2007
On the other hand I suspect that you and I aren't going to agree on much at all. For someone to even try to rationalize dubya's bloody assault on Iraq in the year 2007 is beyond trying to reason with. Let's get back to Al Gore and his accomplishments(the Nobel Peace Prize, remember?). Maybe I mis-read your post and you're not on a Grist article about Al Gore throwing Rightwing talking points about Global Warming and Iraq.
Step back from Fox, Newsmax & John "wingnut" Stossel, give logic and reason a try.
Permalink
RDean Posted 12:10 am
23 Oct 2007
Permalink