Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fawning Over the Gore-Acle

The news out of Norway this morning that former vice president Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global climate change ensures a healthy dose of "will he or won't he" talk through the weekend.


Al Gore

Which Democratic presidential candidate will get the nod from former veep/Peace Prize Laureate Gore?

Gore's statement following his victory seemed to take a deliberately non-political tack. "We face a true planetary emergency," he said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

Our sense is that Gore remains uniquely uninterested in running for president again, knowing that while he is a world figure at the moment, if he got into the 2008 race he would eventually be just another politician. Gore has been through that ringer four times before -- as a presidential candidate in 1988 and 2000 and as a vice presidential candidate in 1992 and 1996 -- and knows better than perhaps anyone else the rigors and rigmarole involved in running for president.

If Gore doesn't run, what his Nobel Prize does is make his endorsement that much more valuable to the candidates in the presidential race. An endorsement from former Vice President Al Gore might not add up to much, as Howard Dean sadly discovered in 2004. But an endorsement from NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER Al Gore is something much, much more valuable. In just seven years Gore has been transformed from a mere politician despised and ridiculed by Republicans and even many within his own party to a global prophet who is widely admired across the partisan spectrum. It's a shocking change that has GREATLY increased his cachet as an endorser.

Given that reality, it's not terribly surprising that the top tier candidates did their best to one up one another in their praise of Gore this morning.

"By having the courage to challenge the skeptics in Washington and lead on the climate crisis facing our planet, Al Gore has advanced the cause of peace and richly deserves this reward," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a statement that subtly cast him in the same line as Gore -- an unconventional leader willing to challenge Washington's conventional wisdom.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) dedicated the front of her campaign website to a congratulations message for Gore.

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) wins the prize for the most inventive uses of Gore book titles in his quote. "The Nobel Committee's recognition of Vice President Gore shines a bright light on the most inconvenient truth of all - the selection of George Bush as president has endangered the peace and prosperity of the entire planet," Edwards said. "Two terms later, Americans are ready for bold change, ready to be patriotic about something other than war and ready to take action to stop global warming before it's too late. The stakes are sky-high - as Al Gore predicted, our Earth is in the balance."

It seems likely that if he doesn't run, Gore will likely endorse a candidate before the Iowa caucuses. And, if our intel is right, that candidate will either be Obama or Edwards. It would be a huge boost for either candidate but for Edwards it could provide him with a major boost heading into his make or break state of Iowa.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 12, 2007; 11:50 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Governor's Line: All Eyes on Louisiana
Next: FixCam: Why House Republicans Are Frowning

Comments

I sincerely feel that Al-Gore should endorse Sen.Hillary Clinton.!!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | October 15, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

A P.S>. I'm quite sure Running isn't running for President either!

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 15, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Just to show there is a Montana angle to EVERYTHING, here's a little clip about a Montanan that shares this prize with Gore.

"A University of Montana climate change scientist who was on a panel awarded the Nobel Peace Prize said Friday he hoped the recognition would put to rest any remaining doubts about global warming.

"Ecology professor Steve Running, 57, was lead author of the North American chapter in a climate change report issued this year by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nobel administrators announced Friday that this year's prize would be shared by the panel and former Vice President Al Gore, who has been outspoken on the need to confront global warming."

Go Griz!!

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 15, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Now that Mr. Smirk & the Rapture-Rushers have jumped gratuitously aboard Ol' Fisheye's calliope, get ready for ... THE RETURN OF THE ICE AGE!
>Failed Peace Prize nominee Rush Limbaugh said, "A bitter unprescribed pill!"
>Another failed Peace Prize nominee, Bolivian president Evo "el Caciquisimo" Morales, said of winner Ol' Fisheye,
-!Copacabana! !Pachamama! !Jijueputa!

Posted by: sawargos | October 15, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

We are all so happy about Al and his trophy, now maybe he'll stop whining about "used to be the next Pres. of the US". But, I do hope he does run for that highest of offices ---- aim high, either for Pope or (dare I say) GOD!!!

Excuse me but I'm going out now to buy those cute, curly light bulbs and a new bicycle.

Please, he's still a dork, no matter what they say.

Posted by: gwalter | October 15, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The Des Moines Register had front page coverage of Gore's Nobel, including an article about John McCain's comments while campaigning in Davenport, Iowa.

McCain said that although he thought Gore's prize was deserved, he "would have liked to see that prize go to the Buddhist monks.." in Burma.

He further said he hoped Gore would support nuclear power as well as "trading emissions." He also talked about his health care plan to provide tax credits for people to buy their own health insurance and will vote against overriding Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill.

His reasoning for upholding The Decider's veto.... the increase in the tobacco tax to fund the SCHIP expansion would encourage more smoking. Say what?

In Iowa, cigarette sales have dropped 30 percent in the last three months, following a $1-per-pack tax increase implemented in Iowa in March. The tax discourages more smoking.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | October 13, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

How does winning the Nobel help Gore in either the presidential election or in advancing his environmental agenda? If anyone doesnt believe in Gore's policies, environmental ideas will people start accepting his policies just because he wins the Nobel Prize?

Posted by: rams8 | October 13, 2007 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Let's face it, the Democratic race has become increasingly nasty and there is no reason for Gore to want to get in the petty campaigning of having to attack Obama and Clinton... and be staunchly attacked in return.

Full analysis here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/as-al-gore-becomes-demigod-democratic.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | October 13, 2007 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is overrated. I can't see him winning the Presidency, nor the Democratic nomination.

I'd like to see Gore endorse Obama because I think if Obama won the nomination it would make for a much more interesting race. I think he would stand a much better chance against the GOP than Edwards would.

Posted by: Lcs210 | October 13, 2007 12:15 AM | Report abuse

How is Blackwater relevant to this thread?

Posted by: crd203 | October 12, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Gore will be nominated for the EPA administrator position in 2009?

Would he take it?

Perhaps RFK Jr. will be the next EPA administrator.

Posted by: crd203 | October 12, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

One more. Party over country is treason

"U.S. Colonel: Blackwater "Actually Drew Their Weapons On U.S. Soldiers."
By: Logan Murphy @ 5:10 PM - PDT Newsweek's Oct. 15, 2007 issue:

The colonel was furious. "Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers." He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad's Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company. Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, "This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press." Read more...

As if being trapped in the middle of a bloody civil war by their civilian leadership hasn't been humiliating enough for our troops, we find out they also have to protect themselves from high-paid thugs from Blackwater -- in the Green Zone, no less. I wonder if Crayzie Shayzie will still hold the same unbridled passion for these guys after learning of this hackery? Oh, and Mr. Romney you STILL have Blackwater's Vice Chairman on your campaign payroll -- how's that working out for you?

"

www.crooksandliars.com

Peace in the middle east :)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I hear that kreuz_missile. I'm not one to back down. I though tyou were new and didn't know zouk. No that i know, I wil be quite. Who am I to tell others how to blog :)

Do your thing. Just some freindly advice.

Get em'. All day everyday. The more these peopel cannot hide from reality. The more people see the gop for what they are. The better off the country/world is.

Change can only come through conflict. Personal change can only come through internal mental conflict. Meaning, you believe this and these are you rreason. The conflcit comes through someone challanging a perseption. If that perseption is a lie planted by propogandists, it should be easy to flip that.

the problem becomes kreuz_missile, when you have the transcript. When you have the audio. When you have the facts. You show them and they STILL won't change. That is the problem.

How does one solve this? That is the question. Do you cut the head off the snake? Do you attack and engage? Do you defend? Do you marginalize? Yes you do.

Do your thing kreuz_missile. We can save the world. The only thing stopping us is the fear inside us, that doesn't even really exist.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

What was your old post name kreuz_missile? Curious. Is that you drindl :)

Great posts today.

Consult the Gore-acle. HAHAHAHAHA. I love it.

Good day today. After all the defeats day after day, month after month. After the gop cult put it's lackies in all positions of power so they are protected for obeying any of our laws.

A small victroy today. Marginalize those that are dividing us for personal profit, or worse. their own twisted amusement.

God Bless. Have a good weekend all. Stay safe. Be cool Gop. Don't hurt anybody, this weekend.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"I love it. It shows independant thinkers what the gop is about. Another loss for the gop. The gop is winnign now in the courts and congress. the libs are winning where it counts."

Exactly why you don't just ignore them or let them wear you down, keep taking the attack right to them.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"If it is so scientific and objective, then how can it simultaneously be political and one-sided. unlike hillary, you simply can't have it both ways."

Well, actually, you can if one side is ignoring the science and making it about the politics rather than the truth...

It took factual science, and then used t to make a political argument. Again, no one hasd argued this was a science research project for publication in Nature. Global warming is science, what we do about it is political. Got it?

"If you don't have one, you are not a statistician, you are a politician. Math, unlike Libs, doesn't lie"

Wow, statistics don't lie? Someone please mark this date for us, Zouk now believes in the infallability of statistics!

"conclusion - the Libs lose in court over their one-sided indoctrination, they try to spin it like it was actually good scientific fact, despite the take-away wording of the actual finding."

What are you talking about? The school won. The passage you quoted, that wasn't the Judge's ruling, that was the judge stating what the plantiff posited would constitute a partisan film. Read the paragraph before it:

"Again there was not in the event much difference between the parties in this regard. Although there was some earlier suggestion on behalf of the Defendant that partisan might relate to 'party political', it soon became clear that it could not be and is not so limited. Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:"

His aanswer to the partisan claims, overall, cana be summed up in a mannner that describes most of your conservative's cires that there isn't enough balance in the media, etc:

"There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory - if it were a political one - that the moon is not made out of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality. In my judgment, the word "balanced" in s407 means nothing more than fair and dispassionate."

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Do not mind Zouk much. He has himself admitted that he just cheerleads the party line despite any of his personal misgivings and without regard to the facts or truth because he wants his side to win, no matter the cost. His tools are misrepresentation and strawmen.

Best ignore him, mostly.

Posted by: roo | October 12, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

His "dittoheads" are finally turning onhim. About time. only took twenty years and the coutnry gutted. Better late than never, I suppose

"CALLER: Hello, Rush. How are you?

RUSH: Fine. Very well.

CALLER: Good. Hey, Rush, I wanted to ask that you not get on Algore too badly about winning this Nobel Peace Prize because if you do everybody is going to see the sour grapes, and I'm tired of defending you. (giggles)

RUSH: Whoa! Wait a second!

CALLER: I defend you a lot.

RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's more important than your comment on the Algore. What do you mean you're tired of defending me?

CALLER: I defend you against a lot of people, even people in my family. I understand. I know this drill, but what do you mean you're getting tired of it? It's just a speech. (silence) It's just a phrase.

RUSH: Oh, I don't mean it?

CALLER: No.
"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHHAHAHHAHA. Listen to rush. AAWWWW. Poor baby. i guess he'll have to console himself by lighting cigars with $100 bills.

AWWWW. He should see if a court will overturn the results. That is the only way the gop is winning anything,a gain, in my lifetime. HAHAHHAHAHA. Wackos


"They can't ever take my nomination away from me. It will never happen. Being nominated is enough. A lot of people have said, "Rush, you need to demand a recount." I've thought about demanding a recount. I've gone back and forth on this. Well, you know, Gore lobbied for this. I've thought about filing an official protest, ladies and gentlemen. I was extremely concerned about the unethical lobbying behind the scenes. I was considering launching an investigation demanding a recount.
"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101207/content/01125107.guest.html

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse


Here is the verdict on the gore movie according to your link. they found the movie was partisan and one-sided which includes the usual Lib playbook. specifically: it was

"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv) The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."

Overall

GORE = misrepresentations and half-truths

read your link before you post next time to avoid such embarrasement. I think you found the secret to Lib policy in these lines above.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

not only did the gop shot themselves. They made the coffin, put themselves in the box and now they are nailing it shut for us. Thank you gop

"Fox News And Right-Wing Bloggers Attack Gore's Nobel Prize
On Fox and Friends this morning, co-host Steve Doocy wasted no time in attacking the announcement that Al Gore has been named a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. "Here's something extraordinary," Doocy sarcastically said. "What do Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, and that crazy Jimmy Carter have in common?" Co-host Gretchen Carlson responded, "They all won the Nobel Peace Prize?"

Fox then displayed a chyron of the last few winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, causing another co-host Brian Kilmeade, to complain: "There's the last five winners -- see Mohamed El Baradei. What do they have in common? I don't know about the 2006 winner, but I will say 2005 and 2007 both anti-Bush."

The Fox panel then turned its attack on An Inconvenient Truth, noting a recent court ruling by a British judge that Gore's film should be accompanied by "guidance notes" when shown in schools. That ruling is now being challenged by schools and teachers. After reporting on the British controversy over Gore's film, Doocy said:

You know, I'm not a scientist. I don't know if any of that stuff is true. I don't think any of it's true. I just know that my daughter watched the movie last week. ... [She said Gore] took three shots at George Bush. And my daughter, who's just 18, was turned off by how it was political. So there you go.
"

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/12/gore-nobel-attacked/

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Zouks unraveling.

Good luck with that. Keep fighting the sceintists on their feild. See how far that get's ya.


I love it. It shows independant thinkers what the gop is about. Another loss for the gop. The gop is winnign now in the courts and congress. the libs are winning where it counts. With the people. think about the future

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

If it is so scientific and objective, then how can it simultaneously be political and one-sided. unlike hillary, you simply can't have it both ways.

and even the "science" from the judge uses inaccurate terminology. he uses significant twice. this implies a specific measure in statistics. so, tell me what is the level of significance then? ( a p value will suffice or a sample size and power test) If you don't have one, you are not a statistician, you are a politician. Math, unlike Libs, doesn't lie.

and of course, no discusssion of the cost, the benefit or the reality of any action. Just like a Lib, a big solution on the hunt for a problem.

conclusion - the Libs lose in court over their one-sided indoctrination, they try to spin it like it was actually good scientific fact, despite the take-away wording of the actual finding.

"ONE-sided and political indoctrination"

then, just like Hillary, they proceed as if these particualr words mean something other than what the dictionary says they do.

Is means was.....political means scientific and indoctrination means objective. In the Lib world that is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"meant to frighten, not inform. the Dem way."

-Yup, it's the Dems who've used fear as a primary motivator the past six years (Watch out, Zouk, there's a terrorist behind you!)

"to repeat - the film is a political piece designed for indoctrination. It has many breaches of fact and comes nowhere close to a scientific or a documentary standard."

Again, from the judge:

"(AIT) is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."


THE RULING:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

We did have rush limbaugh's destorying the coutnry

Didn't, that is

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Yeah kreuz_missile . But at least they won't get the good chocolate :)

These people are so crazy they may do it. I'm serious. i wouldn't put it past these people. I watch o'reilly everyday to try and find out what in the world is going on inside these people's heads.

Very sad. i fear for gop children and the elderly. They don't know any better.

Their time is almost up though. The fairness doctrine ran from 1949 to reagan got rid of it in 1983-4. We did have rush limbaugh's destorying the coutnry before that. I hope thye do bring it back. The gop has been destroyign the country snce reagan got rid of it and signed his amnesty bill.

But the gop loves to point the finger. Moderates. Let's show these lying propogating fascists who really runs this country in 08. What do you say?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

I know numbers confuse you moonbats so this should clear it up for you. now you can put your socks back on since we are under ten.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

the important features of the judges finding - heretofore ignored by the moonbat wing of the New Democratic scientists:

"The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

to repeat - the film is a political piece designed for indoctrination. It has many breaches of fact and comes nowhere close to a scientific or a documentary standard. although it is equal to Michael Moore, Krazy Keith, moveon, media matters and clinton standards, depending on what you mean by "is".

to review - one sided, political and of questionable accuracy, including several blatant falsehoods, meant to frighten, not inform. the Dem way.

although based on the loonies on this site, it is apparently a very effective political piece and worthy of moonie like indoctrination.
they now have professional de-programmers for you guys. you should look into it.

but the most amusing thing is, not only can you not convince me, but your so-called "Dem majority" is not inclined to do a thing about your worries. Maybe you should start a mass letter campaign to them next instead of participating in the Rufas psychological support unit all day.

Poor dumpy gorebot - had to settle for an award from Hollywood and then the Swedes - the new leftists brigade. the voters wouldn't grant him his coronation. what do you expect after losing two debates to a texas simpleton. he can now stand proudly with Peanut and Arafat. what a gallery of losers! Next year look for him on dancing with the stars.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

No, you just know me by another name...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"I have a fix for you zouk and proud. YOU CAN BOYCOTT the SWEDES. THat's what you do right. you don't like something, you shut it down. You boycott it. you turn the gop cult agaisnt it."

Eh, only Dems drive Volvos and shop at Ikea anyways, they'll be fine...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

why waste your time kreuz. Thank you. don't get me wrong. If you are new to this site. Zouk is a fascist propognadist. He is not here to talk about facts. He is here to drown out liberal voices and propogate and attack agaisnt liberals. do not worry about turning him. He is not here for real conversation of growth. Just an fyi. I don't want you to waste your time talking to a brick wall. Jsut an fyi. Do your thing boy.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Moderates. Why do you side with these people? Why are moderate's siding with these people. These peopel are so scazy they are attacking gore all day. Why? think about what you are doing moderates, simon and others. I got respect for you, just frustrated. Why do you side with the right over the left. The left saved this coutnry from going off the deep end. If not for the left the countries problesm would not be fixable at this time.

These people lie all day. They propogate. they attack everyone and anyone NOt gop. do you thin kbe siding with them they will respect you. Come back moderates. do not fear them. the only power they have is the power you and I give them. The moderates run this coutnry. What side are you on moderates? The side with p[eople that would attack al gore out of jealousy. try to ruin him the scientist and the nobel foundation, because they disagree with them.

There are not always two sides. Soemtimes reality is reality. No matter how "optimistic" you are for this or that to be. That does not change the facts. Remember today moderates. Remember the attacks on gore. Remember the moveon petreus ad vs the rush/o'reilly incidents.

Remember what this country was founded on. Not slavery. Not war. I didn't join the army to kill people. I joined because I had to. I joined to protect his country. Remember what this great nation was founded on. If you forget here it is. Come back home moderates. Which side is worse? Who is lying and who is tellign the truth? Who is for fixing problems and who is for making more problems. Think about the histroy bnooks moderates. Think about the future. to those that forgot what this country is. Read up. We can do so much more than "everyone for themselves" and "divide and conquer for profit".

Living you life for money is a wasted goal. It will not make you happy, just less stressed. come back home moderates. DO NOT SIDE WITH THE FASCISTS. Please. Remember what america is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, nine are listed in the ruling, national review added one that wasn't in the ruling (* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- way to build some credibility there...), and the one about Greenland and rising waters are the same on. Again, go to the horse's mouth, not your right-wing talking points to get the actual facts.

Since you obviously don't look at links either, I'll post a couple of responses to each of the 'errors' as well.

From James Hrynyshyn, biologist/journalist:

"Instead of celebrating the news that my man Al Gore is sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the thousands of scientists who supplied the raw material for the slide show that made him "the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding" of climate change, I am compelled to address a list of alleged errors in said slide show. Thank you High Court Justice Michael Burton. No really. Thanks.

As a member of Gore's Climate Project, the team our new Nobel laureate has entrusted to present his slide show, I could take umbrage at the mere notion of inaccuracies therein. But I won't, because the problems identified by the British judge are worth examining. They actually shed a good deal of light on the science of climate change and the scientific process.

So what are the errors? The anti-Gore blogosphere has kindly made the list readily available.

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

Good point. Several months ago, I removed any reference to Kilimanjaro from my version of the slide show precisely because of the lack of evidence tying the mountain's melting ice to global climate change. But good evidence that unrelated natural cycles in the Indian Ocean and East Africa may be to blame only came out earlier this year. Prior to that, it was fair to assume that Kilimanjaro was suffering from the same problems afflicting countless other glaciers and mountain ice caps around the world. Gore's presentation contains so many examples of glacial retreat, in fact, that many Climate Project members are forced to edit out most of them for time.


2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

Now, that's not fair. Gore only associates CO2 levels and temperatures. The fact that CO2 sometimes lags behind temperature is irrelevant. As any competent climatologist will tell you, the fact that they are intimately linked is the problem -- change one and the other will follow, possibly setting off rapid feedbacks. Looks like the judge didn't bother to consult the RealClimate post titled "The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore's got it right.)"


3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Wrong. Gore actually makes it clear that isolated cases prove nothing, and only long-term, widespread trends are scientifically relevant.


4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

Wrong again. Gore doesn't claim Lake Chad's fate is solely because of climate change. The consensus is perhaps half can be traced to climate change. And in any case, Lake Chad is used to illustrate the potential human consequences of increased demand for dwindling fresh water supplies, not as evidence for climate change.


5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

Fair point. But since the film was released, we have had several solid reports painting a grim picture of the future for the species, so I keep the polar bears in my presentation.


6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

Well, it could. And two years ago, when the film was made, many scientists were worried about the possibility, although most did not think that scenario was probable in the near future. Since then, however, those fears have been relegated to the margins, and again, I have removed that sequence from my presentations. Another example of how science evolves.


7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
Then they should have looked harder. Many marine biologists are worried about the fate of corals in a warming, and lower pH ocean. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125631.200-ocean-acidification-the-iotheri-cosub2sub-problem.html


8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

Wrong again. Yes, the film does suggest that -- but makes no time-frame prediction. Using outdated studies, the IPCC says that will happen, in more than a 1000 years. But since then, data on melting Greenland and West Antarctic ice packs have shortened the time involved. Jim Hansen says several meters within a century is a real possibility.


9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Wrong yet again. The film does not claim that evacuations are already underway, only that they are being planned, and possibly imminent.

So when we eliminate the issues on which the judge was simply wrong, we are left with three issues in which either Gore's claims were not entirely supported by the science at the time, but subsequently have proven warranted, or Gore's claims were right at the time, but later proven unwarranted. More or less."

And again, for another take on it, go to this one: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Considering the fact that the animal responsible for the most human deaths worldwide is the mosquito, I think that sometimes the risk is worth the benefit. In some parts of Africa, a woman would be lucky enough to live long to get breast cancer; heck that would be beating the odds in many parts of the world. But not here in the US where we are wallowing in prosperity, and cannot conceive of life as a struggle for survival as many millions do.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP- did you see the news earlier this week about connections between DDT and breast cancer?

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I have a fix for you zouk and proud. YOU CAN BOYCOTT the SWEDES. THat's what you do right. you don't like something, you shut it down. You boycott it. you turn the gop cult agaisnt it.


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

lementary school children. You are a funny people. Misguided. But funny. If you weren't destroying my country I might not hate you. Like bush in 2000. I said, "He's funny. He's a comedian. I like him."

Now I know better. funny or nive does not mean they are not a evil person. That is why all the actors in your party. How do you people keep a straight face when you say these things? Get an actor. He can fool the eldery and will do what WE tell him to do.

HAHAHHA

Old rules, old games zouk.

THe future is now. Your party is done

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Proud, from the article you posted:

"But, at the very least, the stated aims of Carter and even Arafat were the improvement of human life. Gore, by contrast, does not even profess improving the human condition as his fundamental goal. Rather, his stated desire is to stop human activity that he sees as ruining what he calls the "ecosystem.""

Ecosystem: A natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms in an area functioning together with all the non-living physical factors of the environment
-Christopherson, Robert W. (1997). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography, 3rd (in english), Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Inc..

Yup, saving the global "ecosystem" (I still don't buy that it's a real word either) will sure destroy humanity and hinder human progress, the bastard should be taken out and hung (I wonder, though, if Republicans will start claiming (based on the quotes) that Al Gore claimed to invent the Ecosystem).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't have a problem with shcools NOT showing it. In science it is up to the teacher. IMO

to remove it from schools because the gop wants to lie and spin it because of money doesn't do our children, or the future/facts any justice.

That is the problem with our school system, like verything else in this coutnry , GOP SABOTAGE. Thye are trying to create mindless robot racist fascists. The more one learns the more one learns how ridiculous it is. They are a dying breed. I can't wait till the saboturs no longer hold us down. The future is so bright now.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

BOSTON -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy underwent surgery Friday after doctors discovered a partially blocked left carotid artery. Kennedy, 75, underwent the hourlong procedure on his at Massachusetts General Hospital, his office announced.

And to think, studies have shown that regular alcohol consumption prevents clogging of arteries and lessens cardiovascular risk. Maybe Senator Kennedy needs to reevaluate his definition of 'moderate' drinking.

Dr: "What's that tinkling sound? No, I'll not permit any drinking of scotch in my O.R., I don't care who it is."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

And here's a link to the article right here at the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102547.html

"High Court Judge Michael Burton said he had no doubt the points raised in "An Inconvenient Truth" about the causes and likely effects of climate change are broadly accurate."

"Gore's film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact," Burton said."

"Burton outlined nine problems... [He said] there was insufficient evidence to back those claims."


So, the judge, in a 90 minute (give or take) film, found 9 problems - about 1 ever 10 minutes. He didn't find those problems to be lies, he said there was insufficient evidence to prove them.

Mr Zouk, as much as you might prefer to think otherwise, Mr Gore's film is largely accurate.

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

The truth and facts never stopped then before simon. Now they will attack the judge saying he's partisan :). For sticking by his story no less. Because he didn't change his stroy when they reported 11. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Reposting once more for you Zouk, from the actual ruling:

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It (AIT) is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."

Now who's silecning free speech zouk? Now who's "infecting the school system". you hypocrites are funny. good luck with that. What else should we modify while were at it? Waht other histroy do you, zouk the great, want to modify becasuue the truth and facts conflict with your lies and propoganda?

The world doesn't work that way. The time is over for two realities. Reality and the GOP reality.

If you cannot keep up with progress, then stay behind. But were not going to hinder our next generation so you and your s can live in dream land.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"An english judge ruled that the movie exaggerates profusely in at least 11 statements. they are available readily. this does not mean that the rest of the movie is 100% accurate, only that it does not rise to the level of outright lie."

Zouk, read the damn ruling. The 9 statements in question were questionable- only two of whihc were cited as actual "errors" (and several people have already raised the point that the judge misinterpreted those issues as well in declaring them errors).

The facts of the case: One man didn't want the movie shown in schools because is was political and intende to shape opinions rather than inform, contrary to British law. The Judge viewed the film, reviewed input from the scientific community, and determined the film did have a political slant, but not a partisan one (ie it was an issue film and not one to favor Labor over the Consservatives, etc), and out of a number of "errors" cited by the plantiffs, 9 weren't currently generally accepted by the scientific community (they weren't inherently wrong, they were just still up for debate). The judge then ruled the film could be shown, provided a short caveat be provided that the film is meant to promote activism, and debate still exists on those other points cited. Otherwise, the film is largely accurate, and the overwhelming majority of it is widely backed by the scientific community in terms of the status of warming, potential consequences, and action required to mitigate it. You can read the actual ruling for yourself here (I know going straight to the horse's mouth without Rush filtering it and spinning it first, but it might be worth a shot before you say something else incredibly stupid):

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

I think in looking at the ruling the point that's confusing some people is 9 facts are questioned by the ruling, but the judge refers to each of them as they were labeled in the planitffs complaint- thus the first "error" is #11.

I posted these already, but obviously Zouk ignored them again and just got more gossip from Rush. These sites list the 9 issues, what the judge actually said about them, and the reactions of some scientists to the responses:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/10/gore_take_the_prize_british_ju.php

"The movie he made is not a scientific study!!" I'm not sure anyone claims it to be; maybe on this blog, but certainly not Gore or anyone I know of promoting it. If it were, it would have been peer reviewed and had a number of other steps, not to mention a more concise (and extremely boring for that matter) format to follow. But, by the correct definition you posted, do you acknowledge that ID is not a scientific theory.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The judge ruled on nine facts. That a blog at the Nat'l Review claims 11 doesn't change the Judge's ruling.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/11/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gores-Documentary.php

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm ashamed of you proud. I thought you were a clear thinker. I knew you were a partisan blogger. But not to zouks extent of attacking and trying to discredit gore. Wow.

Continue. What do you really think about him?


Continue scientist bloggers who are not partisan at all. and have no agenda. And would never discredit and bash someone merely because you disagree with them.

Are you really mad at Gore? Or are you mad at yourselves for being on the side of the dark side? It is easy to remidy. your guilt is like a bag of brinks proud. ALl you have to do is drop it.

We disagree. But I expected more from you proud. Now I know you are in the same boat as the lying propogate zouk. Malaria?

Pathetic.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students' attention:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

How can you libs make a climate model when you can't count past 9?

i have a great idea. whenever you moonbats want to discuss facts, real ones, not your invented ones, cite the link. we all know your party loves to lie and exaggerate whenever they can get away with it.

And those are the ones that are simply deomonstrably false. there are many others that are wild opinions that have no basis in fact, yet can't be proven to be false, although they most likely are.

but you Libs probably think Sicko is all facts and that media matters is honest and that Krazy Keith is a newsman.
you have to want to believe.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The movie he made is not a scientific study!! If it were, it would be relegated to the trash heap of history along with all the other pseudo-science crap on unproven online infotainment that the masses willingly absorb as fact. The scientific method demands that one disprove the null hypothesis. Gore's documentary fails to do that, and doesn't rise to the standard of causation because of his sloppy and overzealous conclusions.

"Unfortunately, Gore still has plenty of influence as an ambassador of science to the media and lay public, and a Nobel Peace Prize may magnify this even more.

The results of honoring Gore's dishonoring of human progress could be tragic and devastating. Look no further than Gore's tirades against another Nobel-winning achievement: the life-saving insecticide DDT.

The Nobel Committee recognized DDT's immeasurable contribution to public health. In 1948, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Paul Hermann Muller, the Swiss chemist who discovered DDT's effectiveness at combating the insects that spread deadly diseases.

As the Nobel web site entry for Dr. Muller states, "Field trials now showed it [DDT] to be effective not only against the common housefly, but also against a wide variety of pests, including the louse, Colorado beetle, and mosquito," The web site notes further that during World War II, DDT "proved to be of enormous value in combating typhus and malaria -- malaria was, in fact, completely eradicated from many island areas."

And after World War II, DDT eradicated malaria in vast areas of the world, including parts of the southern United States. But it was vilified in the 1962 book "Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson, a woman Gore has called a heroine.

As a result of the ensuing U.S. and worldwide near-prohibition on making DDT, several millions have died in Africa from mosquito-borne malaria that DDT could prevent.


Even after the turnabout by the World Health Organization, the New York Times and other establishment venues, Gore has never once said that Rachel Carson was wrong. As late as 1996, he called DDT a "notorious compound" that "presented serious human health risks."

The tragedy is that on this issue, Gore could have used his tremendous political capital to make a difference in reducing malaria deaths.


And Gore is still hindering anti-malaria efforts by spreading misinformation about its main causes. In his movie and book An Inconvenient Truth, Gore blames global warming for recent outbreaks of malaria in the cooler regions of Kenya. But as I have reported in my book Eco-Freaks and elsewhere, the World Health Organization had documented epidemics in those very regions in the 1940s, long before global warming was on the radar screen. The malaria was wiped out there, as elsewhere, by DDT, and unfortunately, as elsewhere, has now returned in the absence of DDT's use.


Also unfortunate is that the establishment media for the most part has not seen fit to correct Gore on this and many other dangerous misstatements in An Inconvenient Truth. Now, they may be even less inclined to do so.

Never before would the awarding of a Nobel Prize have to potential to due so much damage to public health and human progress. If the Nobel Committee goes with the "politically correct" winds, it is incumbent on every Nobel laureate who cares about the legacy of Alfred Nobel to denounce this terrible decision."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the.html


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

To rush. there not true. They are not disputed. they're not even half truths. Nope. They are lies.

So who is the wacko? The sceintists? The nobel acadamey, or whoever determines this?

Or the beacon of truth and light, Rush Limbaugh sean hannity and zouk?

you be the judge. I think the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE speaks for itself. The truth. NEver stopped the gop from lying and propogating before.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Judge: Eleven Lies in Gore's Movie

A British court certifies eleven inaccuracies in Al's film.
"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Waht beneifit do you get by lying here?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey kingofkooks,

Get your Rush "facts" straight. It was 11 a few days ago, but now Rush is saying 9. You might want to re-up your Lush Rimballs membership.

Posted by: cubbyblue7 | October 12, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Jacksonlanders - don't use the phrase Gore-acle again. Use DWEEB instead.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 12, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Leo to Al: I didn't think it was possible, but love you even more now.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 12, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

simon. It was nine earlier. Rush limbaugh now says their is 11, on his site. So in one day reality changes based on rush's demands. This is the gop world.

"Rush is right".

What will you do without your avatar, zouk?

Rush hannity o'reilly and fox make reality, to these people. they are new God's mold new worlds daily in the minds of the elderly and out of touch with reality

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Now zouk is lecturing scientist about climate change. Alright dr. wacko. The term is "dittohead" zouk. It is so becasue you parrot and ditto what you ravatar says. The world that exists in your avatar's head is not reality. No matter how angry or how loud. Or how tough it makes you feel going after 12 year old sick children and women who have lost their children in war.

Join reality. Or keep living in the 50's and get left in the dust. The choice is yours. Grow and change or don't. But those that do not change are already dead (figurativly speaking)

Continue Dr. Nutcase

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"An english judge ruled that the movie exaggerates profusely in at least 11 statements."


That must be the bedwetters' new math. The english judge raised nine objections to facts claimed in the film, not eleven.

If they get such basic facts wrong, what else might they be wrong about?

.

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"nice prose. you seem to have your finger on the pulse of this blog. Of course the moonbats don't like the light of day."

hahaha. Zouk is a funny girl. Light of day? The man won the nobel peace prize today for his gloabal warming work. HELLO. The out of touch and the wackos are the one's that say global warming is a liberal myth. They are the one's saying the nobel peace prize means nothing. It has in all the years up until this point. Now that you don't like ONE winner you rready to trash teh award. Good luck with that. You people are lost puppies. don't worry, zouk, we won't leave you behind when we are pressing forward. But don't expect us to forget, either. How will histroy recrod you people? One notch below stalin. That is who histroy will record your president.

He is definatly in the top 5 of worse leaders in the histroy of the first world. Where else do you get praise the worse you do? only in fascists minds, like zouk and rush. Nothing matters but the world they create in their minds. good luck with that zouk. Let's see how many clams follow the walrus to teh feast. I'm betting not many. Were you in a cave during the 06 elections? Things have gotten much worse for the gop since. AHHAHAHAHAH

I know. The nobel peace prize is now a "liberal" award. I know. WAA WAA WAA. Complain complain complain. It's called the PEACE prize. Not money/war/hating your own country prize. Do soemthing worthy and maybe a gop'er will get one. Or you can cry whine and complain. What else is new.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental concern, but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other alarmists had way overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today. And while Ehrlich is still peddling the same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show any more; in fact, he doesn't even make it on Hardball or Countdown with Krazy Keith.

Likewise, climate change is a real phenomenon, but the catastrophic scenario of Gore and his fellow climate campaigners is steadily fraying around the edges if you follow the scientific literature closely. Has anyone noticed, for example, that global temperature has been flat for the last decade, after two decades of slow and steady increase from 1980 to 1998? Most of the climate models suggest global temperature should be consistently warming with the rise of greenhouse gases, but it has stopped. This increasingly inconvenient truth will eventually become too obvious for even the media to ignore. Meanwhile, the real world economic consequences of Gore's policy agenda (which Obama and Edwards--but not Hillary--have signed up for) are so extreme that no self-governing people will ever submit to it, which is why a few environmentalists have gone so far as to say openly, "down with democracy." Go ahead; make my day; try that out on the American people. The Democratic Congress can't even pass a modest emissions trading scheme that would barely begin to enact Gore's agenda, because they are afraid of its cost.

Prediction: In 20 years Gore or his climate alarmist successors will be lucky to appear on cable access TV, and Gore's Peace Prize will take its place alongside Le Duc Tho's 1973 award as a Nobel embarrassment.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjQzNDFhZTFkMmM4YWE5Nzk4ZjUxZGVkOGRiM2UzZjg=

don't want anything like a few facts to get in the way of a good fairy tale about the prodigal...make that prodigious son returning to politics to rule the mother earth and return us to ecological sanity.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Please stop with the "Gore-acle". It is rude and unprofessional. Thank you.

Posted by: zukermand | October 12, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday he supports a decision by a district court judge that halts new Department of Homeland Security rules designed to make businesses accountable for employing illegal immigrants -- but the senator seemed confused over the court decision itself. (Snip) Reid described U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer's decision as having not granted an injunction to prevent enforcement of the new rule, and as a decision to indefinitely postpone progress on challenges to it.

the spinless speck of nothingness is confused over how to be the most indecisive.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be the usual Lib daftness about what is science and what is opinion on the court ruling and the award winning gore movie. Let's clear that up.

An english judge ruled that the movie exaggerates profusely in at least 11 statements. they are available readily. this does not mean that the rest of the movie is 100% accurate, only that it does not rise to the level of outright lie.

Did Polar bears die from global warming - no it was from a storm.

will the seas rise 70 feet - no more like less than a foot - same as they have been doing.

and so on..

this is just more of the same from the exaggerator in chief that we all know and love. Mr Love story, who invented the Internet and singlhandedly defended the most dangerous foxhole in vietnam with a typewriter.

his problem remains that his credibility is quite low since when he says 100 the actual number is more like 1.

but what kind of losers are pineing for him to return to elected life?

pick - IV - nice prose. you seem to have your finger on the pulse of this blog. Of course the moonbats don't like the light of day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Zouk and the rest of you flat-earthers, you should be happy to know that it seems that the scientific community and their computer models about ice cap and glacier melting are starting to be proven incorrect. It should be noted that the scientists have always warned that the models might have to be changed.

Based on satellite imaging data, the problem is actually decades WORSE than what the current consensus has been.

Posted by: roo | October 12, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently the naysayers don't realize that in trumpeting the court's ruling that 9 claims in the movie are not yet proven facts, they are essentially conceding that the rest of the movie is accurate." -bsimon

Not only that but I think it's important to note that most of the 9 were not ruled to be FALSE, just not conclusively proven. Essentially, it can be shown that there is a correlation, but not causation evident in several of Gore's claims.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 12, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Theodore Roosevelt for his mediation to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905." Shouldn't this have an astrisk since TR left the Republican party later in life? Kissenger was a republican and won it.

Posted by: dave | October 12, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I will eat cockroaches if Al Gore runs for president. Mark that down...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | October 12, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You peopel attacking gore are pathetic. You don't deserve a leader like gore. The gop wants and deserves incompetant leaders like bush. I think the time to partion the country is at hand. These gop fascists do not love their coutnry. They don''t care about the ideals this coutnry was founded on. Ship them to the dakotas. Let them do what they will


""Perhaps winning the Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be sufficient," said Kenneth Sherrill, a political analyst at Hunter College in New York.

Gore, who was an advocate of stemming climate change and global warning well before his eight years as vice president, called the award meaningful because of his co-winner, calling the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the "world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis."

Gore plans to donate his half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion worldwide about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.
"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S7RLO00&show_article=1

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"here's a question who's the last repubican to win a nobel peace prize?" -jaymills

If memory serves Teddy Roosevelt was the last Republican politician to win a Nobel prize. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in the early 1900's so call it a bit over a century since then.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 12, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

AlaninMisoula: I tend to agree Al Gore will not endorse anyone, to do so would be stupid, and he is far from stupid. Blarg: Rite on about the English judge. I've been waiting for the falsehood about him inventing the Internet.

Posted by: lylepink | October 12, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"U.N. Pushes For War Crimes Probe Of U.S. Contractors In Iraq
By: Logan Murphy @ 10:32 AM - PDT Reuters Via Yahoo:

The United Nations wants probes to determine whether private security contractors in Iraq have committed war crimes and for governments to ensure that the rule of law is applied, U.N. officials said on Thursday.

Ivana Vuco, the U.N.'s senior human rights officer in Iraq, told a news conference that private security contractors were still subject to international humanitarian law and that meant there were specific consequences for any breach.

"Investigations as to whether or not crimes against humanity, war crimes, are being committed and obviously the consequences of that is something that we will be paying attention to and advocating for," she told a news conference. Read more...

Here's hoping the world body speaks up and makes these probes a reality. Congress is finally stepping up with legislation to hold these contractors liable for their crimes, but they need to be condemned world wide.

"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

You see. Discreidt and spin. it's all they got left. They are done. Grasping at straws. The nobel prize is irrelevant? See how many people you can get, gop. You people are a joke.

"Rush Limbaugh said with much sarcasm at the top of his broadcast today. The Norwegian committee, Limbaugh said, has "rendered themselves a pure, 100 percent joke." "

""I confess, I have been in a bit of a funk after learning of the Gore/Nobel news," conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said in an e-mail. "I really thought Cindy Sheehan should have been recognized." "

""This majordomo of his, Albert Arnold 'Algore,' wins the Nobel for a movie!?" Limbaugh said of Bill Clinton. "He's supposed to be the guy who gets away with lies."

As for Gore's award, Limbaugh had a suggestion: "I call on Albert Arnold 'Algore' to redirect his Nobel Peace Prize to genuine agents of peace."

And who might that be? Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. troops in Iraq. "If there has ever been an engine of peace, it's the United States military," Limbaugh said, surely to the delight of his audience"


Who still buys what these people are selling? I can't wait until nov 08. Chrsitmas is coming early this year.

YEEEAAAH

Attack lie spin and discredit.What the gop, independants. That is their tactics all day everyday. War agaisnt americans. Lie spin and discredit. It is their only hope.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently the naysayers don't realize that in trumpeting the court's ruling that 9 claims in the movie are not yet proven facts, they are essentially conceding that the rest of the movie is accurate."

Yeah, in fact, that was the heart of the UK ruling-

"17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It (AIT) is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."


22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

If you can't win, gop, take your ball and go home. You are bullies. If you don't have the numbers or all the cards stacked in your deck you have zero chance. Your party is done. Not my faukt. The internet and your actions killed your party. point the finger where it is due

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"ok this thread is getting nutty now. im out

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 12, 2007 02:45 PM
"

The gop are cowards. "Global warming doesn't exist". That is nutty. The gop is done for a generation. AHHAHAHAHAHA.

Enjoy your irrelevance for 30 years.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"In just seven years Gore has been transformed from a mere politician despised and ridiculed by Republicans and even many within his own party..."

My recollection is that he was "despised and ridiculed" in the main by folks claiming your occupation.

Posted by: kilmory | October 12, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Blarg writes
"I don't know why deniers are trumpeting that ruling as some great triumph; it affirmed that human-caused global warming is supported by all current research. It's not a win for your side."

Apparently the naysayers don't realize that in trumpeting the court's ruling that 9 claims in the movie are not yet proven facts, they are essentially conceding that the rest of the movie is accurate.

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

ok this thread is getting nutty now. im out

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 12, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry people. But this is going nowhere. Ther eis only so much we can say on this.

Cindy Sheehan (sorry no link, email)

"October 12, 2007
Leadership Void
Cindy Sheehan

"They are advocates. We are leaders."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in regards to "Anti-war activists."

People of America, this is truly the problem with what was once a Representative Republic and now is a country run by "elected" officials who believe that they, individually and collectively, are above any accountability and are not answerable to their constituents. Our public servants erroneously believe that they are the leaders!

Ms. Pelosi made this statement to a group of reporters at a luncheon recently and she also went off on activists who have been participating in vigils outside of her chi-chi home in the Pacific Heights district of San Francisco. The people who are vigiling outside her house regularly, in a Pelosi Watch are only exercising their rights as American citizens to make their concerns known to a Rep who was elected from a district that is wholeheartedly against the occupation of Iraq and for impeaching the liars who got us into the illegal and immoral situation.

No, Ms. Pelosi, you are not a leader. You have proven time and again in what you laughably believe is a "mistake" free run as Speaker of a Democratic House that you will do anything to protect an Imperial Presidency to the detriment of this Nation and the world, particularly the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This Democratic Congress supported BushCo's disastrous and deadly surge; handed him over billions of their constituent's tax dollars to wage this murder; have by their silence and votes countenanced an invasion of another country; approved more restrictions on the rights of the citizenry to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure; Ms. Pelosi does not even know if "torture" (which violates international law and the 8th Amendment in our Bill of Rights) is an impeachable offense; and worst of all the impeachment clauses were taken "off the table" in an ongoing partnership with BushCo to make the office of the presidency a Congressionally protected crime conglomerate that is rapidly sending this Nation down a crap-hole of fascism. So, Congress has led us to a few things: war, poverty, oppression, unemployment, and an inexplicable continuance of the Bush Regime.

No, Ms Pelosi, you are not even a leader in the very narrowest of definitions. We do not elect our Congressional Representatives to be leaders, not to be used as willing marionettes for the war machine and other special interests that serve the elite to the detriment of the rest of us, but to represent the will of the people. We send our elected officials to DC and pay their salaries and subsidize their benefits to do the "Will of the People."

No matter how many times Ms. Pelosi and George Bush share tea and giggles and no matter how often she "prays' for him, George is not the Decider and she is only the Leader of the House of Representatives not the people. We are the sovereigns in this country and I tried to demonstrate this when I demanded a meeting with another haughty public servant: George Bush.

I cannot speak for every Democrat, Independent, Green or disenchanted Republican (and there are many) in America, but the consensus from my travels all over this country is that we put Democrats back in power in both Houses of Congress to be an opposition to the Bush Regime and to stop the annoying "bobble-headed, rubber-stamping" approval of all things criminal and murderous. We did not wish to keep heading in the same direction but desired to go another way, which would have required the Dems to finally step up and forcefully counter and stop the high crimes of BushCo. They have failed.

We are sick of excuses. We are tired of the blame being diffused on the Senate, the Blue Dog Dems, the Republicans or even, incredibly, the people of Iraq. A true leader accepts responsibility in ways that are not even dreamed of by BushCo or Congress Inc. A true leader would stand up and do what is intelligent and what is right and if he/she were a leader then people would follow. A leader does not wait idly by for a crowd of sycophants to gather around her before she does her job with integrity and courage; a leader leads the way and the Democratic Congress with an approval rating even lower than George's had better wake up to whom they need to follow: us!

We have countless examples of true leaders throughout American history and if not for them, women would not have the right to vote, much less be Speaker of the House; Black Americans would still be slaves or at the very least still drinking out of separate fountains; workers would not have the right to unionize and children would still be mining coal; we would still have troops in Southeast Asia, and we would still be under the aegis of our close Cousins in Empire: the British. Some of our courageous leaders have had to pay the ultimate price for their bravery and vision and Ms. Pelosi should be ashamed of arrogantly whining over her rubber chicken that Americans exist who want her to do her job because people are dying and lives are being ruined with her complicity.

We have the right to hold both of the political parties accountable. We not only have the right, we have the responsibility.

We not only have the right and the responsibility we have the power.

"

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"Now they say the nobel prize isn't worth anything. They do that with EVERY single incident which puts their narrow world in jepordy."

Every time some celeb says something. Every time someone point sout the gop short comings. What do they do? Lie spin and discredit. the gop from the top to the bottom. SAboturs. Can't we all just congradulate gore and hope he acheives his goal? Is that to much to ask? How does what gore is doing hurt us? Rush owns you goper's. He owns you. He turned you rminds into mush.

Congradulations Al Gore. Sorry for the hate these peopel profess for you. It's not their fault. THey know not what they do.

What a sad day in america. Peace out everyone. Have a good weekend.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

And yours truly said Al Gore's endorsement of John Edwards CANNOT COME A MOMENT TOO SOON. AL-DO IT, PLEASE.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | October 12, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

NAive is good, in this day an age. Naive means you think you can do anything and change everything. That is a good attitude in a free country, like we used to be. Naive means the authoritarians have no control on you. Tha tis far better than being a slave to an external avatar. This country was not founded on slavery, corporate or otherwise. It was founded on truth and freedom. The right in this country, though they love to fly the flag, forget what this coutry is really about. Or they never knew.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore.

No matter how much you fascists whine and complain, you can never take that from him. Now they say the nobel prize isn't worth anything. That do that with EVERY single incident which puts their narrow world in jepordy. They attack all day everyday. This coutnry MUST move past that if we are going to survive. How you ask? Marginalize those that would destroy the nation or divide us for profit.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse


Yes, a cabinet position for Gore, but which one?

Normally, someone with environmental credentials and an environmental agenda might be tapped for Secretary of the Interior. But he would never accept that, and he shouldn't. His whole effort has been to raise awareness on an international level, and if he's not going to be president, then Secretary of State is the only other option.

Sorry, Sen. Biden, you ran a good race.

(Ambassador to the UN would be a feasible non-cabinet appointment.)

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 12, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Great for Gore!! It is a well deserved prize.

I agree with cc that if he runs for President that he becomes just another politician. Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt, Nobel Prize winner and all, that decided to run again and lost.

My concern is that Gore endorses before the primary and like last time chooses the person who won't win. What is the point of that for him. Why not wait and serve any President who is elected on the Democratic side and be a roving ambassador at large re:climate control. Also maybe get that person's endorsement of Secretary General of the UN as someone mentioned when that position opens again.

The reality is that people don't vote based on endorsements. If he endorsed Edwards that won't even help Edwards with fundraising as he now has taken public funds. It will be a one day blip and that's all. If endorsements were the key then Hillary would be running away with it even more than she is now. Look for Walter Mondale to endorse her today.

Edwards is going down hill fast- and I feel for him- but much of it he did to himself. His judgement comes into question when he runs as a candidate of the poor and middle class and then begins to build a 26,000 square foot home, gets $400 haircuts, takes $50,000 to give a speech on poverty and works for a hedge fund. All of which is fine if you aren't running for President.

So if Al Gore endorses him- it won't take all that away and people around the nation and in Iowa, the only primary he has a shot at, won't change their minds one way or the other. It won't bring back the SEIU which decided not to endorse him and it won't get any real workers who aren't for him now.

As to Obama, I think Gore would have real trouble endorsing someone who has never been big on environmental issues and until last week was on the wrong side of most of the environmental groups.

I agree that Gore most likely won't endorse Hillary but I think Gore is smart and will just sit this one out until the primary is over. He need only remember his last endorsement of Howard Dean, and Nobel and all this won't make much more of a difference.

Posted by: peterdc | October 12, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

pck_iv-what the blue hell are you talking about. from what i gather from most of the left leaning websites they are proud of gore and hoping he runs. congrats you just won the stupidest post of the day. please collect your zoukie award!

dd7786a-i didnt know that. well that puts that theory to rest but UN ambassador al gore does sound nice.

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 12, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

cc:
This one is a real piece of trash. The effect of hangin' out with Chris Matthews lately has begun to wear off on you. I suppose it garners comments, of which I am contributing to, which leads to "points" with the boss. Ya gotta do somethin', right?
It was fun to read and btw the Nobel was for bringing awareness to the climate problems, which he has because many folks talking about it today would never have taken time to notice before.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | October 12, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

WOW .These people are dylusional. Do you feel me know blarg. Do you see how much these people hate. You (meaning the moderates) turning on the left will not make the rpeublcians compromise with you (moderates). It is all or nothign for these people. It is the rigth that must be marginalized. They are destroying the world/country. What evil has the left done? global warming warriors. Restore habeus corpus. Stop spying on americans. Stop fox and the right from waging war on americans using baseless lies and accusations.

Do you feel me now blarg. These people will never see the lgiht. They are off the deep end. The moderates need to work with the left, not the right. I know we are naive. But that is far better than hate and malicousness. the left are patriots and great americans. The right and sell-outs liars propogandsits. Now you see blarg, right? After the petreus moveon vs the rush/oreilly incidents. After them attacking al gore all week, FOR WINNING THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. Do you hear me know. And do you see why I get so frustrated witht he moderates?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Apolgies for the double post. Dumb run time error. Hope they'll take the second one down.

Posted by: China_Rider | October 12, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations, pck_iv! You've now created the most insane rant in the history of The Fix. Collect your trophy from Rufus.

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to dash your hopes, but Gore cannot be UN Secretary General. No US citizen can, nor Russians, Brits, Chinese, or French. The UN Secretary General cannot be a national of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Posted by: dd7786a | October 12, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

DrColes, are you a real doctor, or are you a doctor like Dr. Pepper is a doctor?

Yes, let's talk about the UK court. (In doing so, I'll assume that scientific truth is determined by foreign judiciaries.) The judge ruled that 9 facts in "An Inconvenient Truth" are scientifically questionable. The judge affirmed that the rest of the movie (i.e., the thousands of other facts) reflects the scientific consensus. I don't know why deniers are trumpeting that ruling as some great triumph; it affirmed that human-caused global warming is supported by all current research. It's not a win for your side.

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

The world is on drugs. That's the only conceivable answer. Oh, wait, maybe not. Maybe the Nobel folks, Swedes, who have been hating the U.S. for over forty years, have simply taken the Nobel Prize and politicized it. Hmmm. Maybe that would explain why Yassir Arafat got one. And Al Gore.

Even my liberal friends gagged when they heard this news. To quote one, "Stick a fork in the world, we're done. If they can give Al Gore a Nobel for that load of nonsense, the award has no value and we're all hooked on crack."

What really is interesting, fascinating, about all this, ( other than the Hillary moment - "this requires the willing suspension of disbelief..." who knew that would have legs... ), is the breathless turgidity this political bloaf has provoked. It's almost better than watching a car wreck out on 95 after an Eagles game. Here we have these panting Baby Boomers, quivering online in ultra tumescence, the most preposterously narcissistic generation to hit the planet, ever, ( including the French ), and as if that weren't enough, gentles, no, not only do these folks gather daily, hour after hour, to wax in moonbat ecstasy over the same seemingly eternal question of the ages, "How Dare We Be So Beautiful?", but with the advent of the Gluten Twins, Bubba & Euell, this collection of the Me Ãœber Alles crowd seems to have achieved a group rapture experience without parrallel as they get off ever higher on the global narcissism of their heroes! It almost begs the question: Are there enough people on planet Earth to sufficiently offer adoration to Bill Clinton, and now Al Gore, such as their visions of self demand?

At one level, you have to adore how astoundingly cute, vapid, and clueless this generation of Liberals is. No wonder Lieberman has lost interest in even trying to break through the self-absorption smog. If there wasn't so much riding on the unavoidable fact that such dyspeptic clowns as these get to vote in elections, this would be so much fun, who'd ever need a TV or the movies? Just log on and watch the Surrender Monkey's diddle themselves with their keyboards like chimps in crack lab of style point competition.

Seriously, can you all just stop sexing your selves up over this tripe and get a grip on something resembling reality? Do any of you realize you're are all getting yourselves off on a mass delusion? You can't all look in the same mirror and be the Fairest One Of All! It's no better to gather around and watch Al or Bubba preen in mythic self adulation of themselves and then award yourself bonus points for anointing yourselves as having double-plus-good savvy because you're hip enough at ego tripping to get off on them getting off. It's really like a some sad 1930's Depression Era Berlin live sex-discipline show. You're all in this Hyper-Self Narcosis.

"Who will The Al Gore - Saviour Of The Universe -anoint with His special favour? Who will He Bless with his bestowed Joy Touch!? Will it be the Breck Girl? The Magic Negro? Will The Al Gore outstretch His Blessed Hands and touch H.R. Puffin-Stuff with The Healing?"

Waiting for the old folks to die off? Who are you kidding? The "Old Guard", and their grandchildren - your kids - are dong everything they can to wake you all up out of your stupor before you literally allow the country to dissolve and collapse into nothing but a pile of burning rubble in homage to your infantile fantasies of peace, love, and ecology.

You do not care about facts. They simply get in the way of your emotional masturbation. Consider that the English high court, not overly famous as a right wing toady club of neo-cons, could not in even their own conscience, allow Euell Gore's trope to be shown in their liberal English class rooms without a variety of caveats reminding the students that they were watching a movie of political haranguing augmented by "science" as a further trope to lend Algarve's religious cant something that active aspidistra might mistake for credibility.

Al Gore for President? No. Not Al. Prince Algore could never be President. The heir apparent of King Friday's Land of Make Believe needs to be the King himself. Someone may have hit upon the right vehicle. America is too small for the likes of Algore, the Prince Dauphin. He needs the whole world. He needs the United Nations. "Yes, Gaia, I will permit you all to adore me now."

Posted by: China_Rider | October 12, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The world is on drugs. That's the only conceivable answer. Oh, wait, maybe not. Maybe the Nobel folks, Swedes, who have been hating the U.S. for over forty years, have simply taken the Nobel Prize and politicized it. Hmmm. Maybe that would explain why Yassir Arafat got one. And Al Gore.

Even my liberal friends gagged when they heard this news. To quote one, "Stick a fork in the world, we're done. If they can give Al Gore a Nobel for that load of nonsense, the award has no value and we're all hooked on crack."

What really is interesting, fascinating, about all this, ( other than the Hillary moment - "this requires the willing suspension of disbelief..." who knew that would have legs... ), is the breathless turgidity this political bloaf has provoked. It's almost better than watching a car wreck out on 95 after an Eagles game. Here we have these panting Baby Boomers, quivering online in ultra tumescence, the most preposterously narcissistic generation to hit the planet, ever, ( including the French ), and as if that weren't enough, gentles, no, not only do these folks gather daily, hour after hour, to wax in moonbat ecstasy over the same seemingly eternal question of the ages, "How Dare We Be So Beautiful?", but with the advent of the Gluten Twins, Bubba & Euell, this collection of the Me Ãœber Alles crowd seems to have achieved a group rapture experience without parrallel as they get off ever higher on the global narcissism of their heroes! It almost begs the question: Are there enough people on planet Earth to sufficiently offer adoration to Bill Clinton, and now Al Gore, such as their visions of self demand?

At one level, you have to adore how astoundingly cute, vapid, and clueless this generation of Liberals is. No wonder Lieberman has lost interest in even trying to break through the self-absorption smog. If there wasn't so much riding on the unavoidable fact that such dyspeptic clowns as these get to vote in elections, this would be so much fun, who'd ever need a TV or the movies? Just log on and watch the Surrender Monkey's diddle themselves with their keyboards like chimps in crack lab of style point competition.

Seriously, can you all just stop sexing your selves up over this tripe and get a grip on something resembling reality? Do any of you realize you're are all getting yourselves off on a mass delusion? You can't all look in the same mirror and be the Fairest One Of All! It's no better to gather around and watch Al or Bubba preen in mythic self adulation of themselves and then award yourself bonus points for anointing yourselves as having double-plus-good savvy because you're hip enough at ego tripping to get off on them getting off. It's really like a some sad 1930's Depression Era Berlin live sex-discipline show. You're all in this Hyper-Self Narcosis.

"Who will The Al Gore - Saviour Of The Universe -anoint with His special favour? Who will He Bless with his bestowed Joy Touch!? Will it be the Breck Girl? The Magic Negro? Will The Al Gore outstretch His Blessed Hands and touch H.R. Puffin-Stuff with The Healing?"

Waiting for the old folks to die off? Who are you kidding? The "Old Guard", and their grandchildren - your kids - are dong everything they can to wake you all up out of your stupor before you literally allow the country to dissolve and collapse into nothing but a pile of burning rubble in homage to your infantile fantasies of peace, love, and ecology.

You do not care about facts. They simply get in the way of your emotional masturbation. Consider that the English high court, not overly famous as a right wing toady club of neo-cons, could not in even their own conscience, allow Euell Gore's trope to be shown in their liberal English class rooms without a variety of caveats reminding the students that they were watching a movie of political haranguing augmented by "science" as a further trope to lend Algarve's religious cant something that active aspidistra might mistake for credibility.

Al Gore for President? No. Not Al. Prince Algore could never be President. The heir apparent of King Friday's Land of Make Believe needs to be the King himself. Someone may have hit upon the right vehicle. America is too small for the likes of Algore, the Prince Dauphin. He needs the whole world. He needs the United Nations. "Yes, Gaia, I will permit you all to adore me now."

Posted by: China_Rider | October 12, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Right blarg. The oil companies wouldn't lie. they have no conflit of interests. Who believes these people anymore? The elderly? young kids? Who is buying this garbage? Wouldn't any independant thinker see what is going on here?

i can't believe Fox hannity and rush are still on the air. After all they've done and all the blood on their hands. Divide and conquer for profit.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

This shows the Nobel Peace Prize is a sham. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ and Flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. UK court says Gore is a fraud.

Posted by: DrColes | October 12, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

This isn't new, but I just found out about it. Next time you hear people talking about how global warming is a myth, or citing the scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, think about this:

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Criticize global warming, get a big cash payoff! Sounds like a great deal, as long as you don't have any integrity.

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

peace scorbett. I hear you. Go Obama-gore 08.

The bash gore people are lost. Sorry for the confusion. At one time choosing party over country was treason, you know. Thes epeople hate everything about heir own country. Why? This si the greatest coutnry in the world. Why? We WERE a nation of laws. And We HAD freedom. The gop has done everything they can to break this country.

Saboturs


Peace scorbett1976

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Oy, must readers proofread everything for staff? It's "through the wringer," as in the device that squeezes water out of freshly washed clothing, not "through the ringer."

The language police will get you if you don't watch out.

Posted by: AnotherHagman | October 12, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS11_33 - you took what I wrote the wrong way. I was simply saying that I don't believe Gore will put out an endorsement before the nominee is pretty well solidified. And I was taking a dig at CC for always bashing Gore's weight. There's no bigger supporter of the former VP than I.

Posted by: scorbett1976 | October 12, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Although its great that he won the Nobel peace prize I feel that there are much more deserveing people out there. And even though he said he did not want to run for president I think he may be seting himself up for a position in the presidential cabinet.

Posted by: mowen2 | October 12, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Although its great that he won the Nobel peace prize I feel that there are much more deserveing people out there. And even though he said he did not want to run for president I think he may be seting himself up for a position in the presidential cabinet.

Posted by: mowen2 | October 12, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse


Al Gore will never be just "another politician." That's one. Two, "Gore-acle?" What, is this The Daily News or something? How about showing, you know, some class?

Posted by: Nurse_Tabby | October 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

J-thanks, i was suprised to hear that this morning. good job

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 12, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm not so sure Gore will endorse any primary candidate. What's in it for him if he does? Gore is positioned to have a role where he can further his cause in the next Democratic administration, no matter who is President.

He could spearhead the US acceptance of the Kyoto Accord. He could be in charge of proactive steps the next Democratic Administration will likely take toward global warming.

Why jeopardize that by taking sides before the nominee is certain?

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | October 12, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

jaymills,

Theodore Roosevelt for his mediation to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.

Posted by: J | October 12, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile, it's amusing how the beltway MSM keeps trying to push Sen. Clinton as the front runner, knowing their fine ability at prediction in the past."

You are confusing a snapshot of a point in time with a prediction.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I hope that when President Gore runs for re-election, he chooses well amongst all the fine choices for VP - Richardson, Obama, and Clinton come to mind.

Meanwhile, it's amusing how the beltway MSM keeps trying to push Sen. Clinton as the front runner, knowing their fine ability at prediction in the past ...

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I like the idea of Gore endorsing Edwards. That is, if he does not run himself, which would be my first preference.

Edwards could win the election, and is our best shot to form a consensus in the country, and unite as we move forward.

Posted by: river845 | October 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Just goes to show us all that blindly following bush into war was the direct result of a fixed selection in 2000. The real question is are we smart enough to retake our country and crimminally punish the seditionists who assisted Bin Laden in his cover up of the crimminal acts done by his friend GHW Bullcaca and son, et al. There are those who take and those who give to others from their good fortune, which do you think Bush is????

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | October 12, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I do still however think it should have gone to Bill Clinton, Ian Paisley, and Gerry Adams for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, however...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

ok CC knock it off with the gore-acle bit already.

saying that gore shouldnt have deserved the nobel win,is just being partisan at best. i seem to remember someone nominating dubya for a nobel peace prize a few years back. it seems that the only people that are disputing global warming is the oil companies and well the folks who still belive that the earth is six thousand years old.

besides, even if you dont agree with al gore, dont you think that the planet we live on should at least be taken care of? not to the extent that most folks want but clean air,water and land for our kids and grand kids? well thats my two cents.

here's a question who's the last repubican to win a nobel peace prize?

Posted by: jaymills1124 | October 12, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"I fail to see how making a slide-show replete with exaggerations about how the sky is falling contributes to overall global peace."

GOre has been leading a movement to raise awareness to force action on global warming for two decades (see the reprint of his 1999 article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200827.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Which goes well beyond AIT to include his push for the Kyoto Protocals, etc. As he wrote in 1989, threats to our environment represent threats to our security: Wars are fought over control of vital resources, one of the biggest being water. Global warming leads to shifting climates (which is the real danger, not a couple of degree rise in average global temperature), which leads to shifts in water, agriculture patters, and entire cultural ways of life. This is already playing out in Africa, and many Middle Eastern experts see more future wars in the region being fought over water rights than over oil. This is all clear if you follow the real science of the issue rather than just reading right-wing denyers, and is absolutely worthy of the Nobel.

"I'd say those 'nine significant errors' in Gore's documentary that Judge Burton listed are but nine more good reasons why Al will not attempt to run for prez."

Spinning and misleading again I see, Proud? They were 9 'errors' (labeled in quotes to denote they were accused errors, not demonstrated scientific errors), most of which were caveated not because they were wrong, but because there was no "scientific consensus. Most of the judges comments, also, contain errors that have been pointed out (Gore never claimed mass evacuations had taken place, only that contingency plans were in the works, which they are; a storm caused the polar bears to drown, but never in twenty years before that storm had a single polar bear drown in the region and the ultimate reason was from exhaustion from swimming too long- all of which, even the nature of the storm, could likely be attributed to warming, etc.). Here's a couple of good science blogs reacting to the Judge:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/10/gore_take_the_prize_british_ju.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Beyond that, though, do you accept the Judge's ruling? That of several thousand facts presented, only 9 are even truly debatable (which is what the caveat called for would say, not that they are wrong) and, most importantly, the rejection of the lawsuit as the ultimate result because "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."?

Let's compare this fact check with Ann Couter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or even some of the Republican presidential contender's books and see how it holds up. Most people's doctoral theses contain far more 'errors.'

Posted by: kreuz_missile | October 12, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Two points:

1. You write: "take a deliberately non-political tact." Your copy editor should replace "tact" with "tack."

2. Stop with the "Gore-acle" already. You guys have a lot to answer for from Goring Gore in 2000, so please let's not repeat history.

OK, tell your editor, I'm off to read TPM now. They're better at breaking news, and I don't have to worry constantly about whether I trust them, or if they're working some angle. Unlike you guys. Good luck with your business model.

Posted by: lambert_strether1 | October 12, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

See cc. They will never be happy. you change it for them and they have more complaints now. " You give them an inch".

This is why it is better to have this site open and free. No amount of silencing will ever be enough. There goal is fascism. Facsims goal is to compleatly silence one side. Teh side of freedom. If you let them bully you around cc, they will just continuei to use these methonds. that is why freedom of the individual is so important.

We have more complaints now, than before registration. Now they want spelling rules and your blog topic rules. See what I mean. BEtter to jsut do you cc. post your topics. Let freedom ring. Ignore the fascist peanut gallery. Their goals are not your goals. You want a forum so people can talk politics and change/grow. This runs coutner to everything about the gop. So to cave in to them only hurts yoru cause.

Now you see cc. i tried to tell you

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Heh heh heh look at the Bush supporters running in circles trying to diminish this award. Sorry but the Nobel remains a pristine prize and nothing you guys can say does anything to decrease Gore's stature .. or increase the stature of your squalid hero.

I'm sure there are those who believe Bush should have gotten the Nobel for his trailblazing work in the Middle East. Problem is that it's been all blaze and no trail.

Enjoy the margins!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | October 12, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I agree that "Gore-acle" is silly. The Fix should stop using it.

Al Gore, and the rest of us, can be confident that "Dubya" will never win a Nobel Peace Prize...or an Oscar!

He enjoys the admiration of hundreds of millions of people around the world, the same people who hold Bush and Cheney in absolute scorn and contempt. After the Bush family stole the presidency from Gore in 2000, all of this seems like poetic justice!

Posted by: harlemboy | October 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

greenwald

"Bill O'Reilly devoted the beginning of his show last night to warning Americans about the dangerous radicalism of John Edwards, proclaiming that "John Edwards has no chance to become president because he's simply too far-left for most Americans." After highlighting all the scary, fringe positions Edwards holds, O'Reilly summarized what the Far-Left America would look like once John Edwards got done with it:

[W]ould you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
Who could even fathom an America plagued by habeas corpus, search warrants, and a military that fails to beat, freeze and mock-execute its detainees? And nothing is more sacred to core American values than branding other countries' armies as "Terrorists" ("The [Revolutionary] Guard is the SS of Iran").

O'Reilly has aptly highlighted here the new ideological divide in our political culture -- one is now on the "Left," usually the "Far Left," if one supports what were previously the defining attributes of basic American liberties, while one is "Serious" and "Responsible" and "Centrist/Right" only if one is too sophisticated and "tough" to actually think that such effete and abstract things matter
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/12/edwards/

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Still working that "Gore-acle" joke, huh? God forbid you praise the man without throwing in a belittling nickname.

Posted by: Blarg | October 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

anyone see hillary on olberman last night?

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

If he is not running, I doubt he would endorse anyone.
Why would he?
Why not stay above the fray, and wait for the winner to select him for cabinet position.

Posted by: sanjay08544 | October 12, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

right LoudounVoter. Yesterday it was "edwards is cheating on his wife, so says the national enquier." today is a judge in england disagree's with him.

Anything any where to make a point. I just hope their sources are more often the national enquier, or some republcian at the weekly standard.

As long as they have less and less credibility. I'm good. Give the fascists their avatars. The avatars just need to be pointed out for what they are. This is happening. Their day of rekoning is almost at hand. Ideally rush hannity malkin oreilly and everyone at fox would be off the radio and tv. They could put out cd's for the old folk to buy. Slap a parental advisory sticker on there, like rap, so children don't ge their hands on it.

Sound like a good plan? the good news for you gop is, unlike rap, the words would not be silenced. Bleeped out. Free speech? only the gop has free speech. Let's apply the same rule sthey apply to the left on them. It's only fair.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Balance, Proud. If I say the sky is blue, would you need to balance that out with republcian lies also. Soemtimes ther eis the truth and lies, proud.

The gop are lawyers. for all their attacks on edwards and the left as being abulance chasers. You peopel, down to a man, are lawyers for your party. Regardless of the facts you always argue the fascist side.

He won the NObel Peace Przie. He is an american trying to solve the global crisis. Stop attacking him for your own political gain. You chicken little need to look at the bright side. Stop listening to rush hannity and fox that get you old people so worked up you want to destroy everything and anything.

Respect what al gore has done and is doing. Anyone who attacks for no reason needs to be asked why?

Why Proud? why is he the bad guy? Why do yo people hate gore so much? is he a liar. I know rush has a denial stance. I know a sceintist or two get's paid to make alternate studies. But that does not mean their is "another side".

Did anyone see the way the gop works with this rita wilson thing? She used to work at fox. I'm adding this because it illustrates the way these phycos think.

she writes a book acusing people of something. Seh has no proof. She tries to bribe two MAIDS in the bahamas. She tries to pay them to say this or that to give her LIES credibility. One problem with that. The peopel were recording her calls because they knew they could not trust her. She is a propogndist and a capitalist. The facts don't matter. Only her making money matters.

This is your study, proud. It is paid lie.

Gore won the nobel peace prize. Rejoice. An american won it. Stop the partisan attacks. "don't worry. Be happy. La la la "

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Wow, proud, all of a sudden you care what an "unelected" judge -- in England, no less! -- says about something? Too funny.

Posted by: Spectator2 | October 12, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore will NEVER be "just another politician". Yet, you try to argue that just his endorsement will be of greater value than a Nobel Peace Laureate, Former Vice President, Congressman, Senator, Vietname Vet and visionary running for the Presidency of the United States. Yep, doesn't that sound ridiculous when you read it back.

We should be so lucky to have Al Gore serve his country again as President of the United States. And I hope he digs down deep to find that passion he tucked away so he could bring about the awareness he has worked so hard on as a citizen, to combat this planetary emergency.

Run Al Run


Superman wears Al Gore pajamas!

Posted by: ldp | October 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Gore would want a cabinet position from the person he endorsed. If he doesn't want to be in politics, he'll certainly not want to be a political appointee, unless it was perhaps as our ambassador to the UN.

AndyR might have the right idea, though. I could definitely see him as the Secretary General of the UN sometime in the future.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 12, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris, this is one of the few times I agree with you. My hunch is that he will not endorse Hillary Clinton. I think he will endorse Sen. Obama or Sen Dodd. I don't believe Mr. Gore will accept a cabinet position in any administration, as some posters here have stated. Mr. Gore is too intellegent and good to be a president in this country now, and he will not waste his time in a cabinet position. He is known and respected world wide, so he will continue to be a spokesperson for saving the earth all over the world.

janet

Posted by: bringbackimus | October 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, hallelujah, Al Gore finally won something. Oh...woops, I forgot he already won an Academy Award too.

Does it lessen the victory just a tad that, by some stroke of cosmic coincidence, the announcement of the Nobel coincided with the conclusion of a months-long court case in Britain examining whether An Inconvenient Truth can be shown to British school children? The judge ruled this week that the movie can be shown in classrooms, but only if accompanied by teacher guidance notes balancing Gore's "one-sided views."

I'd say those "nine significant errors" in Gore's documentary that Judge Burton listed are but nine more good reasons why Al will not attempt to run for prez.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Interesting column, but do a little sub-editing, please. Wringer has a "w", and cachet has a "t".

Posted by: Krunj | October 12, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Wear shorts. Wear sun block.

Let's hope we can stop you saboturs before it's to late.

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

With all the talk on Global warming - who is to blame and how can it be fixed, people are missing the biggest question of all: What is being done to help society adjust to a warmer planet.

The planet is gone through a heating period following a mini ice age. Its going to happen. We can take steps (I doubt we will) to help slow it a little but there isn't much we can do to cause the planet to chill; and if we did we would probably over correct and cause an Ice age.

Which brings me back to my question: What is being done to prepare society for a warmer earth.

Posted by: dan_w71 | October 12, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Good point andy. A cabniet position, after endorsing obama of course :).

then he could work on his passion , and serve the government. And it wouldn't really matter which d won. That's a good idea.

Especially of he is not going to engage any other issus of the day. If he wants to only work on climate change, if he feels it's that big of an issue, LET HIM.

He knows the subject. He has ideas on how to fix it. Let him run with it. Great day in america, today.

Finally some good news for us to wrap our hands around. After bad news all day everyday. When the d's have power it looks like they are really going to do big things. The gop will be the party of sabotage. Indefinatly. good luck with that platform. Let's see how far it get's the gop. Theya re done for a generation

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

What if Gore is setting himself up to be the next UN Secretary General? I just saw a picture of him and Tipper wiht the current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and I could totally see it.
That would be about 6 to 8 years or so away. It might be the one position that would be better to have then the presidency. It would also be the first time a North American has served in that post.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

It just sad he is only working on this. He is needed in so many other issues. I guess he doesn't want to make this a partisan issue. But the gop hates him and attacks him anyway. Like you moderates trying to woo the gop. It's not going to happen. They are to far gone now. Let the old folk die out. Ignore the peanut gallery who has nothing construtive to do or say. Saboturs, for profit.

I say he get more involved. A leader leads. He is needed now more than ever. Why he is sitting their waiting is beyond me. He should be knee deep in the politics of the day. He will endorse obama. You all know this. Let's not play games.

I just hope he adds his name to the ticket. It would be an enormous boost to obama. I think gore would push him over the edge, to the presidential win. He would have to swallow his pride. But if they did well he would get the presidency one day.

Go Obama-gore 08

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

They're a little testy today aren't they cc. Man.

Eaaassssaa.

don't be made. this is a good thing. Republcain propogandists these days. You peopel are now longer the "mainstream". You are the sabotur minorty now. Stop sabotaging your country and the world. Respect those that are trying to solve our problems, rathher than attacking everyone who closes your little world in on you. It's better to help the world than hurt it gop. Why do you not understand this.

Your party is doen for a generation. Not becasue of al gore, or me, or obama. You are done becasue your stances on important issues of the time and your refusal to work with other people unlike you. You did this to yourself gop. That is why your done. If you want to hate, and point the finger. Look in the mirror. Your party is done.

Consult teh gore-acle :)

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I fail to see how making a slide-show replete with exaggerations about how the sky is falling contributes to overall global peace. but this award jumped the shark when Arafat was given a "peace" prize.

how far out there do you have to be to consider the gorebot relevant in any substantial way, other than his girth, of course.

the idea that anyone but Hillary stands a chance on the Dem side is becoming forelorn. this is certainly a study in the power of the press and the laziness of the reporters covering her.

when will we get an answer to any difficult question? that chest of clinton secrets must be about to burst open soon. They can't keep buying off burglers and embezzlers forever, can they?

If Hsu can extend his trial past 2009, he can expect a high-priced pardon, I am sure. do you think the lie detector will melt down completely if Sandy ever gets hooked up?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

There is no way that Gore will endorse Hillary. As I have said before I think Edwards will get the endorsement with the understanding that he would choose Obama as his running mate. Gore genuinly likes Edwards and Obama both and I think he would like to see them both on a ticket for president.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

To abd for you scorbett1976. It's better to talk about that which matters. Unlike the gop candidates. What differance are they going to make. This is the story of the day. Cc should have you blog about the relevant topics of the day, once in a while.

thsi is big news. It is a repudiation on the rush's and bush's of the world. The fox "news"s of the world. Teh more these people are marginalized as the fascist liars they are the better. This shows their face. I love it.

Go Obama-gore 08

Posted by: RUFUS11_33 | October 12, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Please don't ever use the term 'Gore-acle' again. It sounds really stupid and tabloid-y.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | October 12, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I hope your "intel" is correct.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 12, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't get your hopes up for a Gore endorsement before the primaries have run their course.

Oh, and Chris, you surprise two days in a row! This is your second straight Gore-centric post that didn't include some dig about his weight. Good for you.

Posted by: scorbett1976 | October 12, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I hope he does endorse Obama. I think he's a much better candidate than the has-been Edwards.

The unlikely event of a Clinton endorsement would surely secure the nomination for HRC, though.

Posted by: JasonL_in_MD | October 12, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company