Gore Gains Power as Well as Prize By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JIM RUTENBERG http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12cnd-future.html?hp=&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — Al Gore’s seven-year journey from loser to laureate began in bitterness, settled for a time into self-imposed exile and led him in the end to rediscover his voice on climate change. The question now is what he will do with the prestige and attention that came to him with the Nobel Peace Prize. The answer appears to be that he will neither embrace nor reject another quest for the presidency, but harness the speculation about his intentions to become a more formidable force on environmental policy and a power within the Democratic party. Mr. Gore’s close friends and advisers said today that he had no desire to be drawn into the race but that he saw the clear advantage of leveraging the acclaim. The clearest expression of his true feelings, they said, was his brief statement of thanks for the prize in an appearance in Palo Alto, Calif., where he talked about planetary politics and uttered not a word about the kind unfolding in Iowa and New Hampshire. “This obviously turns everybody toward the presidency, but I think he’s saying what he means,” said Paul Begala, a political adviser in the Clinton White House who prepared Mr. Gore for his 2000 presidential debates against George W. Bush. “He knows there’s a Democratic field that Democrats are happy with, and that they don’t need a white knight riding in.” Democrats also said that Mr. Gore’s entry into the messy world of politics would undermine the stature that comes with the prize as well as his role as a wise man and conscience among many liberals. “Why would he run for president when he can be a demigod?” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who was a top aide in the Clinton White House. “He now towers over all of us because he’s pure.” Michael Feldman, a strategist for Mr. Gore who was meeting with him today, also said that Mr. Gore was not entering the 2008 race. “He’s focused on trying to solve the climate crisis,” he said. Ron Klain, a senior adviser to Mr. Gore when he ran for president in 2000, echoed Mr. Feldman. The speculation that Mr. Gore would win a Nobel Peace Prize began soon after the success of “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Oscar-winning documentary on global warming. But Mr. Gore’s close aides said they did not believe the Nobel Prize would come to him as soon as this year. When his phone failed to ring early this morning, Mr. Gore assumed he had been passed over. He and his wife, Tipper, then turned on CNN to see who had been awarded the prize, only to learn that it was he. Although he shared the award with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was in many ways a personal victory for Mr. Gore, one achieved beyond the shadow of the disputed election of 2000 and outside the orbit of the couple to which he has been linked for so long as a partner and a rival, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Like Mr. Gore, Mr. Clinton has dedicated his post-White House career to global good works, and has himself been mentioned as a possible Nobel winner some day; this was one prize Mr. Gore got first. Mr. Gore’s moment of acclaim also came just as Mrs. Clinton has solidifed her position as the perceived front-runner among the Democratic presidential candidates. Officials with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in interviews today that they had no expectation that Mr. Gore, who was vice president for eight years under Mr. Clinton, would enter the race. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign Web site was devoted to Mr. Gore’s Nobel win, featuring a flattering photograph of the former vice president and a banner headline, “Congratulations!” Still, James Carville, a strategist for Mr. Clinton who is informally advising Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said of her top political aides: “They’re not an operation that believes very much in chance, and I’m sure that they’ve got contingencies.” Most analysts said that it was not impossible for Mr. Gore to start a credible run for the presidency at this late date, but that it was certainly a challenge, especially given that the leading Democratic candidates have already built formidable war chests and organizations in the early voting states. If he were to make a run he would have to formally commit to it in a matter of weeks. The filing deadline for candidates in New Hampshire is Nov. 2; it is a relatively easy process requiring a signature and a $1,000 registration fee. Mr. Gore’s supporters could still begin a write-in campaign on his behalf if he does not meet that deadline, but it is unclear how successful that would be without a declaration of candidacy from Mr. Gore. In Iowa, Mr. Gore’s relatively small band of committed followers are prepared to push him as a candidate in as many caucus rooms as they possibly can, but that effort will similarly be difficult without a go-ahead from Mr. Gore. Even former President Jimmy Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, weighed in this morning. “I’ve called Al Gore and urged him to run for president so many times,” he said on NBC’s “Today.” “He finally told me the last time, ‘President Carter, please do not call me.’ ” There is an assertive sense of vindication among Mr. Gore’s close associates, who remembered the days when Mr. Gore’s devotion to the environmental issue earned him the derisive nickname Ozone Man from George H.W. Bush during the 1992 election, when Mr. Gore was running as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. Mr. Gore’s advisers also remembered the lonely days after the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 resulted in Mr. Bush’s presidency, and Mr. Gore, who won the popular vote, was derided by many Democrats for running what they said had been a lackluster race. “Nobody wanted to pay attention to him anymore,” said Donna Brazile, who managed Mr. Gore’s 2000 campaign. “But they’ll pay attention to him now.” One person close to Mr. Gore, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at this point Mr. Gore would take no affirmative steps to secure his place on state ballots. But, this person said, neither Mr. Gore nor his staff had been paying close attention to the ballot drives and indicated they had not realized that some of the initiatives could theoretically lead to what they have portrayed as unwanted slots on state ballots. In contrast to other Nobel peace prize winners in recent years, Mr. Gore is a multimillionaire who has built a media and high-tech empire around himself and his environmental work. He is an adviser to Google, sits on the board of Apple and is the chairman and cofounder of Current TV, a cable network with 38 million subscribers. He receives up to $175,000 per speaking appearance, although he waives or reduces his fee for some nonprofit companies and schools. Fast Company magazine has estimated his net worth at more than $100 million. Laurie David, a producer with Mr. Gore of “An Inconvenient Truth,” said she regularly asks him whether he will run for president and he responds as coyly to her as he does publicly. “I’ve brought it up a million times and he always pretends like his cell phone’s not working,” she said.
Honestly, this couldn't have come at a better time. You raise a good point. After several years of Bush, almost entirely with a GOP Congress that would pass whatever he wanted, as long as he didn't veto what they wanted (not that their mutual interests diverged worth mentioning), you have a World staring in stunned amazement at what this country and its government have been doing. Amazement and despair. More is expected of us, much more, and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Gore shows the rest of the world that we can still produce decent leaders who care about them, not only the US. People wonder where global warming can lead, what climate change can do, with all the attendent consequences, like water shortages, as has been pointed out. Consider this... if the sea level rises 2 or 3 feet, or a meter, for those who enjoy the French standard ( ), millions and millions will be affected. Bangladesh, for example, is an extremely low country. They would be hugely affected by a rise of that magnitude, and most of the science points towards a rise in sea level in that ball park, and sooner than was thought only a few years ago. We are in seriously deep ****. Al Gore is showing the world that there are Americans who care and will take action. Now, we need to get our government with the program. Bush has been a creature of those who don't give a damn about any of this. Those who care more about quarterly earnings. Time to get it together, people. D&D. Impeach Bush for Promoting Terrorism.
The Al Gore crusade is a useless one. Nothing he or anyone can do will reverse what's happening. By the time the technology is there for clean enough energy for most of the world's inhabitants, it will be way too late if the models of those who claim Global Warming is man-made turn out to be true. Nothing can be done except to invest in the technology. So what's his crusade about? Nothing. Fact is we should focus on things we can control like pollution and lead, and world education, HIV, and trying to make sure everyone has clean drinking water. Trying to kill jobs and punish our economies and let other countries like china and india go on adding C02 doesn't make sense. Let's fact it, the Ice Caps may likely melt. So we have to learn to adjust. Maybe I'd have more respect for Al if he dealt with the reality instead of going after the impossible. If Al Gore started preparing people for what he believed was the inevitable, if he advocated living in a future with higher seas levels, I'd respect him. But this route - it's all so self-serving. Hero? Please....Al knows it's long been too late to do anything. Game's over. Unless he can convince India and China to go back to the stone age....if you believe in global warming, then you have to accept that our world is going to be a lot warmer over the next 100 years.
The quintessential Republican (Republicans of the last couple of decades) response to anything of this nature. Do nothing, because it won't make a difference. Blame someone else. Worry more about corporate profits than the welfare of tens, even hundreds of millions of people, including huge numbers on the Texas coast, Florida, the Northeast. You know, Washington, DC will have serious problems if the sea level rises a meter. It is scarcely above sea level. Parts of New York City will be in deep ****. I could name hundreds of cities, towns... whole regions that would be affected. Here, not only around the world. But let's not do anything. After all, it won't make any difference. (insert "roll-eyes" here)
You act like there will be a great flood and millions will die. I got news for you, if this global warming thing is real, sea levels are going to rise a meter or more. And I have more news for you, even if the U.S. cut it's CO2 emissions in half, it won't matter because China and India will keep pumping out CO2. Typical liberal response though. Let's just do something to make ourselves feel better. It doesn't matter if it doesn't do any good, but it will make ourselves feel better. Sort of like giving a quarter to a bum on the street instead of volunteering. If we pay token responses, meet and sign treaties, this will solve all the world's problems magically. Let's not try to deal with a warmer world, let's just throw a bunch of jobs away. Afterall, we don't care about jobs, all we care about is sticking it to the corporations. And news for ya - I'm not a republican, my liberal friend.
This reminds me of the scene in Gore's movie about what's more important, the economy or the Earth. Hey NY, what happens to America's economy if the Earth is uninhabitable?
I "act" as if "there will be a great flood and millions will die. I got news for you, if this global warming thing is real, sea levels are going to rise a meter or more. And I have more news for you, even if the U.S. cut it's CO2 emissions in half, it won't matter because China and India will keep pumping out CO2"? You make no sense, with all due respect. In the very next sentence, you agree with me. If sea levels rise a meter or more, the effect will be catastrophic. Tens and tens of millions will be displaced. Wars may very well be fought over finding a place for these teaming millions, the ones who don't die in the chaos, and the displacement of all those millions will be a disaster on a gigantic scale for the countries and areas those displaced people attempt to go to. Large productive areas, producing enormous amounts of food and industry, will be lost. Those things, and far more, will lead to untold misery and conflict, yes, wars over who ends up where, and who can hold on to what they have. You say, "I have more news for you, even if the U.S. cut it's CO2 emissions in half, it won't matter because China and India will keep pumping out CO2." So you would do nothing. A very "proactive" response. You say it would make no difference, which is, with all due respect, ridiculous. Attack the problem and it may not go away, but logically, it could be reduced in impact and prepared for. Long term, acting now will have a major impact down the road. Then you say, "Typical liberal response though. Let's just do something to make ourselves feel better. It doesn't matter if it doesn't do any good, but it will make ourselves feel better. Sort of like giving a quarter to a bum on the street instead of volunteering. If we pay token responses, meet and sign treaties, this will solve all the world's problems magically. Let's not try to deal with a warmer world, let's just throw a bunch of jobs away. After all, we don't care about jobs, all we care about is sticking it to the corporations." What is that? Simply a knee jerk attack on people who want to do something about a developing global disaster, straight out of the Rove/Rush manual. In short, no response at all, simply ludicrous BS, with all due respect. Distortion, deny, attack, demean, dismiss... all right from the Karl Rove manual of attacking those who don't agree with their agenda. "And news for ya - I'm not a republican, my liberal friend." I don't know what you call your political beliefs, but in this instance, they are solidly right wing Bush/Rove Republican, pro-business and the hell with everyone else, pump the quarterly profits, Rush Radio tripe. All over the map, NewYorker, with all due respect. D&D. Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture and Gross Incompetence.
This is a gross mischaracterization and overgeneralization of his response. He didn't say "do nothing, because it won't make a difference." A better summary of his post would be "why punish the good guys while the real "bad guys" go scot-free"? He actually advocated doing something, like investing in environmentally-responsible technology and cutting down on pollution. And as much as you'd like to discredit him just because he isn't a liberal like you, he does have a major point that nobody can avoid: countries like China and India are a far worse problem for the global environment today than America is. Of course, nobody has the cojones to address the real problem -- as long as we're running our own personal feel-good campaigns and broadcasting edgy commercials on MTV we think we're really saving the world.
CO2 isn't going to make the Earth uninhabitable. Other polluants might do that though. You have to put a realistic policy in place. Gore is big on sounding an alarm, but short on solutions. We need solutions that aren't going to put America at a disadvantage while the problem gets worse because of China and India. Gore is offering us nothing.
Please tell me of great sage of knowledge...how will cutting our CO2 levels back to 1995 levels make a difference? At those levels, according to you, global warming was happening. And, you add the increase in the rest of the world, and we'd still be skyrocketing with CO2 levels. So if these CO2 levels will result in meters of ocean rising - which no ones knows for sure since increased humidity might conteract increased CO2 levels - what impact will cutting back a bit for the U.S. do except hurt jobs? Tell me, how many inches of water will we lower the sea? How many less people will need to be moved? How many fewer wars will be fought? Now, let me ask you, how much can be accomplished by preparing for the slow gradual increase in seas? Like building dikes, or learning from venice. You act like we can't cope and live in a warmer world. So tell me what the difference is in these two approaches? Give me a number...oh you can't! Gee, I wonder why
Slightly off-topic, but I seriously cannot wait for a Democrat to win the presidency so we can see everyone have to shift roles in what is OK and what is not OK. It's seriously going to be funny seeing some of the extreme right-wingers argue that the executive branch is abusing its power and for the lefties on this board to argue for more power.
Because the only consistent feature in every instance that someone despises you is you. <EMBED src="http://www.gunsofaugust.net/just.mp3" autostart=false loop=false volume=100>
Yeah, i'd rather be despised than spineless ya know. I stand for what i think, and i can understand why liberals and a few others like yourself just attack people personally because that's better than admiting your wrong. but it's fine ottoman, because it doesn't bother me one bit. i find it amusing, and i know that the fact that after two or three years, people are still taking the time to personally attack me is actually a great sign of respect. it means so much to you and a few others...i really do feel that i've gotten in your heads to such a degree. the spite is so great, i really enjoy it man....keep it coming!
You should really watch your language. BTW, by default when you launch something off of someone's website, IIS will record their IP address. Did you know that? Edit: I see you toned it down a bit. Good for you, but the original comments don't really jibe with the tone of the revised edition.
you are a spineless p***** but that's besides the fact. i changed it because i realize that i don't want to stoop down to your level, that's too easy. so now you have my ip address - you can send me some worms or viruses huh? I wouldn't put that past you. Anyway, now that you have my IP address, i guess you now know that I'm truly not in NYC and am in fact in Canada.
