'Endangered species': Campagin accuses Planned Parenthood of encouraging black women to abort 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Gore endorses Obama
In a letter to be emailed to Barack Obama’s supporters, Al Gore wrote, “From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.” The former vice president plans to appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit tonight.
ADDENDUM: OK, so this may not be big “news,” but do you think Gore’s late arrival and “do whatever I can to make sure he is elected” support will be an asset or a liability for Obama? Will Gore jet around the country making speeches on Obama’s behalf? Hmm … better not; the carbon offsets might bankrupt the Obama campaign. Maybe he should borrow Jane Fonda’s anti-war bus that ran on vegetable oil.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: Al-Gore, barack-obama
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top31 Comments to “Gore endorses Obama”
In other “news”, the sun rose in the east today.
Report comment to moderator
Good response, KRM. I was thinking along those lines, too.
Report comment to moderator
That thud you hear is Gore landing on Obama’s bandwagon.
Report comment to moderator
Al who?
Report comment to moderator
The carbon offsets might bankrupt Obama’s campaign – but they would make Gore even richer indeed (assuming that Gore would insist that they be bought from the offset organization that he part-owns, like the other offsets he buys). If that were the case, I’d applaud him for getting highly involved!
I myself am operating at a carbon deficit! I buy (from myself) offsets at four times my family’s carbon footprint.
Report comment to moderator
KRM beat me to it. I was going to say, Exciting news!
Report comment to moderator
So how many trees suffered to print this “duh!” story?
Report comment to moderator
One left-wing fascist endorsing another left-wing fascist. Wow.
Let me try to care…almost had it! No, wait. Lost it.
Report comment to moderator
Al who? Al I told you so — the guy who right now would have the inverse of Bush’s job approval polls. The guy who will remind Florida of its buyer’s remorse.
Report comment to moderator
I thought it was funny that Al Gore asked everyone to be civil to McCain to which the crowd gave resounding ‘boos’.
Gore looked like he was trying to be genuine until his next sentence when he launched into an anti-Bush tirade about failed policies which he said McCain would continue.
I’m sure McCain was appreciative.
Report comment to moderator
No, Xion, Gore’s next sentence was a rebuke of the crowd and a review of McCain’s excellence. The criticism wasn’t a “tirade.” After all, Gore didn’t demand arrest and prosecution of the president who disgusts Americans more than any other.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, a tirade is a demand for someone’s arrest and prosecution? Right.
I think that Obama and Gore basically have the same supporters, so Gore’s endorsement won’t make a difference.
Report comment to moderator
Tirades are characterized by anger. Gore’s tone was passionate, determined and scornful, but not volatile. Most importantly, Gore was pitching strikes. Most people agree with him.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes life isn’t fair. First, Obama has to deal with Rev. Wright, then it was Father Fleger, and now Al Gore! It’s just too much. Next thing you know, Hillary’s campaign manager will want a job with him. Oh… You say she’s already there?! Incredible! How can one “messiah” candidate have so much bad luck?
Report comment to moderator
I stand corrected. It wasn’t a tirade. He was scornful, but not volatile.
Report comment to moderator
Gore was scathing and dead accurate. He said what most Americans think. He spoke as an elder statesman transcending partisanship.
Report comment to moderator
Congratulations to Dav (#8) for being the first to reach for the ridiculous extreme.
Report comment to moderator
Gore — what a joke. I wonder how many happy hats they gave out to have the announcement?
Who were the attendees? Did they receive a dinner for two?
Was the AC on?
Is Gore the VP choice? — that would be a ’super hoot’ not a ’super delegate’
Report comment to moderator
Before I begin, I will sum up the majority of previous posters (including Mickey’s):
AL GORE IS STUPID!! HE LIKES THE ENVIURNMENT, AND THATS STUPID. HAHAHAH, LOLOL, CARBON EMISHUNS ARE STUPID!!!1!
To the original question, I think Gore’s endorsement means very little at this point. Those on the left already support Obama, and the Compassionate Christian Conservatives on the right gain no more mud to sling. After all, as this thread indicates, you’ve got so little on Gore that you just ridicule his environmental stance. What’s that compared to a secret America-hating Muslim black power socialist?
The only impact I see: with his environmental cred, he might staunch whatever bleeding Nader will inflict.
Gore played it too safe, IMO. He should have stepped in earlier to help force Hillary out after it was clear she could not have won. That would have allowed Obama some more time to campaign against McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
Elder statesman? Not words that would have come to my mind about Gore. Also, since when do we arrest and prosecute someone because he “disgusts” people? That doesn’t sound like the America I know–sounds like totalitarianism.
Gore is a has-been who fought way past common decency when Bush won the election. Any respect I had for him was lost along about the third recounting of dimpled chads. And yes, he’s responsible for that travesty–he could have pulled out at any point and not continued the charade of pretending that enough recounts would change the results. I personally believe he was responsible for some of the damage to our country from 9/11, since he limited Bush’s ability to get a new Administration together before his inauguration by dragging that spectacle on so many weeks. Elder statesman, Gore is not.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Cheryl. Gore never did anything more than serve as a lousy VP and produce a silly movie full of hot air.
Report comment to moderator
JJF
Will you ever learn the correct spelling? It’s stooooopid.
You know, like blaming Gore for 9/11. or generally thinking a career stopped in 2000. Things like that generally are called stoooopid. Of course as a liberal, we prefer the shorter “What?!”
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
Did anyone blame Gore for 9/11? I must have missed that. Now, it has been said that Bush had the shortest transition period in modern times–he wasn’t given security clearance, the ability to put together a government, and all the other things a newly elected president needs for weeks–and that, since he had barely been in office when 9/11 happened, his short transition might have done damage to the country. That’s speculation, who knows “what might have been,” but I think it’s credible speculation. And yes, Gore was responsible for Bush’s short transition period, so if indeed the short transition period hurt Bush and the country, then Gore is responsible for it. (Gore IS partly responsible for those who stupidly claim that Bush didn’t really win the election, because he didn’t pull out and graciously concede once it was clear he had lost, and there’s little doubt that that hurt Bush in his early days in office. So Gore simply must take some blame for weakening Bush, though we can’t really know the results of that.)
Whose career stopped in 2000? I don’t follow that argument. Some people died in 2000 or retired in 2000, so some careers did stop then. But it’s not clear who you’re talking about. Gore? If so, who said his career stopped in 2000, and what is the relevance of that statement to anything? (I think his public career pretty much did, but to be honest I don’t follow Gore enough to know what he has done since 2000 except write some silly books and movies. What’s your point about careers not stopping in 2000?)
Report comment to moderator
If Gore represents what “American’s think” then the polls would be overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. They are not.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D
While there may have been some disruption of the transision in early 2001, as I recall, we had moved rather far from that position by the end of the summer (stem cells were a hot topic, also military tensions with China were flaring). By the summer of 2001, the President had his team in place. So you can see why I found it odd when you said
I personally believe he was responsible for some of the damage to our country from 9/11,
That just doesn’t seem to line up with the facts.
As to career ending in 2000. Ah… well, that’s a dig, inexpertly delivered, to dear Outkast. Off hand I would say that winning major awards from the international community and from the entertainment industry, plus becoming financially successful qualify for what we term success. The snarky-ness seems rather small, where attitude gets substituted for cotent.
Report comment to moderator
As soon as Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean, his campaign tanked. Maybe that will happen this time. I think that may be why he waited so long–he didn’t want to risk having Hillary beat Obama.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D. Also, since when do we arrest and prosecute someone because he “disgusts” people?
Disgust isn’t a sufficient cause, but very often it’s the necessary cause for prosecution. Bush disgusts a record number of Americans, which is good cause for the House to take up the 27 articles of impeachment buried in the Judiciary Committee. Indictments are not dismissible tirades, they are claims about fact and law, which are subject to substantiation and refutation. Congress is cowardly to ignore them.
I personally believe he was responsible for some of the damage to our country from 9/11, since he limited Bush’s ability to get a new Administration together . . .
Talk about stoooopid. Cheryl has no way to substantiate this huge accusation, and if she did, it would damn Bush by conceding what Condaleeza Rice denies.
The fact is, Bush’s security agenda was pre-occupied with star wars and state-to-state relations, and ignored the pleadings of Richard Clarke and the CIA about the threat of terroism.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
For the record, the threat of terrorism wasn’t being ignored. I know someone who used to work in a very “vulnerable” industry (one completely unconnected to the ones that were actually hit on 9/11, BTW), and the very morning of 9/11 they received a warning that they were on high alert; nobody knew what was about to happen, but our intelligence was aware that terrorism threats were quite real at that moment.
Clinton hampered our ability to deal with terrorism. I’m sorry, but the “blame” can’t be laid on the shoulders of one man who’d been president for only a few months, and not on the man who “led” the nation for eight years before that. If Clinton had paid a little less attention to skirts, maybe we would have done better. But really, from all that I’ve heard, GW Bush took terrorism more seriously in a few months than Clinton had in eight years. (A friend of mine who was in military intelligence had a lot of strong things to say about the harm Clinton did to the military and our preparedness. He wasn’t speaking of terrorism per se, but it’s a little hard to believe that counter-terrorism didn’t suffer greatly. And we know that the CIA and FBI were hurt. All of that takes recovery time, time that Bush simply didn’t have before 9/11. A gutted military doesn’t recover overnight.)
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D. I’m sorry, but the “blame” can’t be laid on the shoulders of one man who’d been president for only a few months,
Theoretically, you could be right, but in Bush’s case, we have to figure that he did nothing in his campaign, his transition, and his first nearly 8 months in office that would have done any good for the country had he had more time before an attack. Can you say “Star Wars”? Now, if Al Qaeda had attacked us with an ICBM, then certainly all us Bush bashers would be forced to concede that the blame lay with those who opposed Bush’s “space shield.” But the attack did not come from outer space, and the intllligence community tried to warn Condaleeesza and W. In vain, because the Clinton administration terrorism recommendations were literally on the bottom of the in-box while Condaleesza and W were focused like lasers on state-to-state negotiations to permit Star Wars. Check out any of the books of Richard Clarke.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
“Star Wars” and defense against terrorism are two separate issues and not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary. (The first helped us win the Cold War, BTW–Soviet documents have proven that. So laughing at that is rather unwise.)
Report comment to moderator
Both are necessary
Yet Bush ignored one when it mattered most.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!