Your Democratic debate guide, the under the bus version

This should be a goodie.

Hillary Clinton can call Bernie Sanders a gun nut (because he is), Sanders can call Clinton a Trans-Pacific Partnership hypocrite (because she is, as Perry details) and if Joe Biden doesn't officially enter the race by then, Beau Biden's last tears can sit in a jar on stage (since they told Joe to run).

Cynical? Me? Noooo.

Not because Hillary Clinton has more campaign positions than Bill had sexual positions.

Not because Bernie Sanders not only IS a gun nut, but he's actually a Democrat who's a selective war hawk and more. (Or "less," to riff on Ted Rall, as I did).

Not because the Democratic rogues gallery is so geriatric that if Biden runs, he still wouldn't be the oldest candidate.

Not when other Dem possibilities are weak tea, indeed. And that includes the Al Gore weak tea.

To complete the debate lineup, we'll have an empty suit named Martin O'Malley, a saltine named Jim Webb, preferably the traditional version (think about it, on both parts of that), and a man looking like Lincoln Chafee who, unfortunately, will be Lincoln Chafee. (Al Gore will be backstage with a massage therapist.)

And your debate drinking game?

Shots for either "Benghazi" or "socialist, as I note in my more serious guide as well.

If not Hillary, then whom (for Democrats)?

Per the poll on the right, a post of mine from last week, a post of PD's from last week, and this Huffington Post piece, what if 2016 is 2008 redux for Hillary Clinton? She's got a fresh semi-scandal on hand with her email server, done to avoid both the real and fake parts of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and also done for Clintonian secrecy. (Ultimately, this seems more a Hillary than a Bill thing.)

I agree with Perry that there's enough "real" in the email scandal, plus, enough Hillary Clinton mindset in the issue, and the fact that it's going to be a "drip, drip, drip" for at least a couple of months, that she's officially entering damaged goods territory. Bernie Sanders, per Puff Hoes, is drawing crowds, doing the right thing with Black Lives Matter (if/when they let him), etc. If not the frontrunner, he is in "serious contender" territory.

Is he a winner? (Not in terms of electability, but first in terms of actually getting the Democratic nomination, then in terms of desirability.)

First, other candidates.

I've already said I don't get anybody visiting this website, if they know my political views, and, per that poll, favoring Jim Webb over Clinton. Ugh.

O'Malley? I've noted, without a specific blog post, that a fair amount of today's Baltimore policing issues stem from his time as mayor. If Black Lives Matter wanted to disrupt anybody's campaign, it should probably start with his.

Biden? I blogged about the optics of how he's sticking his toes in the water, among other things; he has now met with Elizabeth Warren, a sign that he's sticking more toes in the water, and perhaps trying to position himself as the electable midpoint between Clinton and Sanders. He'd be incrementally better than Clinton, probably, but that's about it.

(Update, Aug. 24: He's running, it seems more and more.)

Al Gore? I shot him down a month ago, even before more massage therapist rumors started coming over the transom.

Sanders? I've noted that he's not all he cracks himself up to be. On foreign policy issues, a "tell" will be if he votes against Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. For me, that could be a semi-bright line as to whether I'd vote for him, or for nobody, in the Democratic primary.

And, as I noted on the Biden piece, while not listing Gore's age, Lincoln Chafee is the only announced or hotly rumored candidate who's not eligible for Social Security. Biden and Sanders are both 70-plus.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver and his 538 gang provide an analysis of Sanders' chances. It's more off the cuff than scientific, but I agree with the issue that Sanders needs to increase his black support to have a real chance in the primaries. A black supporter of Sanders in South Carolina says it's about name recognition and familiarity as much as anything. Probably at least halfway true.

And, I also agree that Biden's not likely to enter unless Clinton's "drip, drip, drip" picks up.

Which gets to a longer-term question: Where's the Democratic bench? Jerry Brown in California's in the geriatric set and the original neolib governor. Andrew Cuomo in New York is skating on the edge of state-level scandal. Colorado's John Hickenlooper, if the GOP wins 2016, will probably move to the front of the line of 2020 Democratic candidates, if he wants. And he'd be 68 then. Jay Inslee of Washington, just maybe, but on age, he's a year older than Hickenlooper.

Name any other Democratic governors that catch your eye. Or senators. If Kamala Harris replaces Barbara Boxer, she's a possible, but 2020 would be a Senate election year for her, too.

Finally, if you're a Democrat, do you even really want it other than ego? Depending on what oil prices and the Chinese economy look like a year from now, you could be starting your presidency battling a recession, plus trying to figure out the half of Obamacare that's yet to be officially implemented, and other things.

No, Al Gore isn't the answer to either #FeelTheBern or Hillary

Al Gore/Wikipedia

Let me indulge Salon's Sean Illing enough to post a link to his piece. And, thence to destruct it.

Yes, Hillary has high negative ratings. That said, whoever comes out of the GOP race won't?

Yes, Sanders has hurdles of his own. But, he couldn't sell himself in a general election, if he got the nomination?

Yes, Hillary has high negatives. And, many of them aren't in part from connection to hubby Bill? And, that's our perfect entree.

So, let's look at Illing's 10 specific points.

1. Stature? Gore has less of it than Illing suggests. It's been 15 years since his presidential campaign and 8 since his Nobel Prize. How many people under 40 regularly think of Gore? How many under 30 even know who he is?

2. Vulnerability? Should he enter the race, he'd have plenty of it, mainly from his years as Bill Clinton's Veep. Income inequality. Standing by Bill on the repeal of Glass-Steagall. NAFTA. The start of Internet spying on Americans. JoeMentum Lieberman as his 2000 Veep. Dialing for Chinese dollars.

3. Sanders as a "regional candidate"? Same argument could have been made about Gore 1992. And, making your second Gore-touting point a weak Sanders-bashing one doesn't bode well, either.

4. Independents? See Gore's "vulnerability" above. Outside of climate change, he's no more attractive than Hillary.

5. Foreign policy? Illing can write all he wants on a blank slate. Reality is that Gore, like the Slickster, had PNAC ties, the neolib version of neocon foreign policy, and more. As for alternate history? He, like Shrub, might have attacked Saddam Hussein after 9/11.

6. Wall Street corruption? See No. 2 above, and things like dialing for Chinese dollars in his official residence. See Glass-Steagall. See "silence on income inequality."

7. Climate change. Agreed on this, but, this is to oversell the value of climate change as an electoral issue. It's a "slice" issue.

8. Nothing to lose? Oh, nothing other than peace of mind, ease of life and a rehabilitated reputation. And, again, if this is about reasons why Gore would make a good candidate, why is this on the list?

9. Vengeance? Gore refused to fight fire with fire in the Florida recount. In other words, he didn't have it in his bones then and probably doesn't today. And, a lot of his handlers and staff knew that about him in 2000. Plus, this assumes Jeb Bush gets the nod; "vengeance" isn't really a deal for Gore vs. other GOP candidates.

10. Democrats need a spark? From Al Gore? The man who refused to fight fire with fire in 2000? The man who's the same age as Hillary? The man who's been out of politics for 15 years?

And, a bonus No. 11 ...

Illing calling me "sport" after I Tweeted, pre-blog, that his list was either vacuous or stupid, or both, gets you a bonus.

Because all of these points were and are clear and easy to think about.

Basically, Al Gore is a neolib like Hillary who doesn't have any baggage that's currently being discussed, but if he entered the race, he'd have plenty of baggage that would be.

The idea that he would bring something "special" to the Democratic presidential base ... basically shows how "thin" the Democratic bench is, how worried many Dems-first "liberals" actually are about Hillary Clinton, and how "thin" much of the Democratic national-level world of ideas is.

And, Sean Illing? That includes you. "Sport."

Oh, and any allegedly liberal Louisianan claiming Gore is the answer, who's not named James Carville, is probably dumb enough in some ways that he just should change his name to James Carville. Oh, and with such brilliance, how you ever got to teach political theory at LSU I don't know. And, while not wanting to be strange or other bedfellows with conservatives, such things DO make me wonder at times about whether academic tenure is totally a great idea or not.

Additional reasons to support the popular election of US presidents

Nearly 14 years ago, bush v. Gore reminded us that the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't always square up with electoral votes. Even without the loser in the popular vote winning the electoral vote, in a very tight election with third-party candidates, the winner may have only a plurality, not a majority.

But that's not the only reason to support direct popular vote of presidential elections.

Here are some related reasons.

First, we technically have no official national vote for president. That's because of the electoral college system, compounded with the fact that each state's voters, in what is now essentially a formality, vote separately. The electoral college is the only official vote there is. Usually, as it has been for years of presidential elections, the Associated Press's tally of state-by-state popular voting is summed up and made into a quasi-official figure. But that's not the same.

But that's just a minor point, albeit the introduction to the main one.

If we have direct popular voting for the presidency, that would be a national vote, across state lines. And, it would therefore require federal government oversight of presidential elections. I don't know if, in addition to fear of "the masses," this was another reason the Founding Fathers rejected direct election. I've never seen it mentioned in serious constitutional histories. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Obviously, even more than the tatters of the Voting Rights Act that still remain, this would arguably allow for direct federal polling observation, etc., in places of concern. As far as disenfranchising voter ID bills, it would arguably prevent states from applying such a standard to presidential elections unless red-staters could force through a federal voter ID bill of similar stringency, or unless they decided they wanted to go to all of the expense of officially conducting all other elections separately from a presidential vote.

Obviously, this would mean that we would need a Federal Election Commission with actual legal teeth.

And, in the case of those pluralities, if we rightly insisted on an absolute majority to win? The FEC, rather than going through an expensive runoff process, could institute instant runoff voting or something.

Another Earth Day, a few thoughts

It's not a special anniversary Earth Day, but with things like the continued  delay in a Keystone XL decision by Team Obama, even as Dear Leader continues to push the Trans Pacific Partnership, I'll put a few thoughts on blogging paper.

First, though, a look back at my life at a few of those special anniversaries.

For me, 1995 was the first Earth Day special anniversary I really remember. At 25, it was a big one. Sure, Newt Gingrich and gang had just taken over the House. However, the CFC accord to protect the ozone layer was good news and global warming was not yet even a small cloud on most of our horizons. So, things were looking good then.

Next, on to 2000. Global warming was at least a small cloud on more horizons by then. Bill Clinton had negotiated the Kyoto Accords to address this. Unfortunately, he had not submitted them to the Senate. Doubly unfortunately, it was clear they would fail if he did, and that probably no more than half of Democrats, even those not up for re-election in 2000, would support them.

Then things got worse.

In 2005, for the 35th anniversary, we had President Bush having officially rejected Kyoto. After talking about carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the 2000 campaign trail, he had totally ditched that. He had also ditched EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman for actually taking him at his 2000 campaign word. Meanwhile, evidence for global warming and broader climate change, and its potential severity, continue to mount.

Then, 2010. Things seemed better with a Democrat in the White House, even though the economy was distracting from too many environmental concerns.

And now, today.

First, Keystone XL. President Obama is clearly, in my book, going to delay a decision until after the midterm elections, then approve it. If you deeply believe otherwise, I've got a sub-95 day in July in Phoenix to sell you.

Second, the Trans Pacific Partnership. How does this relate to climate change?

Simple. "Free" trade treaties that encourage additional international trade without the carbon tariffs to have the globe pay the environmental cost of all the shipping involved are inherently anti-environmental, as well as the labor issues they cause, and the environmental issues in countries such as China with low environmental regulatory standards. And, like the original NAFTA and WTO deals, transnational companies would have a shot at overriding US environmental regulations. Much more here.

Things have changed since 2005, or even 2010, in other ways. We're continuing to improve our degree of certainty on how much human activity is going to affect mean temperature increases across our planet. We're starting to figure out more of how climate change is related to large but sub-global seasonal weather issues, such as the "clipper" that gave the US Northeast a snow-heavy winter while exacerbating drought in California.

There's a third issue which I've briefly blogged about before.

The National Park Service's centennial is in 2016, and so far, I've heard very little "noise" from the White House about the run-up to this, celebratory plans, etc.

I'm afraid that what eventually gets wheeled out will be corporate heavy, too.

I'm not a James Kunstler, but I do sometimes have my degree of despair over the future of our planet. Climate change, as we mark another Earth Day, is one of the main drivers of such, though not the only one.

Add in the deniers, minimizers and skeptics. Add in the fact that Obama seems to have the least amount of focus on environmental issues of any Democratic president since Harry Truman. None of this helps.

Add in that minimizers and skeptics, to the degree they accept anthropogenic climate change, then switch gears to what I have previously called "salvific technologism." That's the belief in technology's saving (salvific) power, so much so that said belief in technology becomes an "-ism."

Well, the human ability to adapt is constrained by something that didn't exist in the Younger Dryas, or even, for the most part, in the Little Ice Age, or its predecessor, the Medieval Warm Period (which is still a bit cooler than we are today), and that's the modern big city, let alone the megacity. It's hard to "pack up and move" 20 million people in greater New York City, London, Los Angeles, Shanghai or other spots. And, all but L.A. of those four cities face definite worries over rising sea levels.

Meanwhile, "Earth Day" isn't even on Google News' list of top "trending" items, as of 1:30 p.m. Central Time.

Add to it the "gang green" environmental groups deciding at the start of the Clinton Administration that cozying up to Democrats for political "access" was more important than being firmer on stances. Then, we have the topper, several years ago, of Sierra Club selling the rights to its name, for branding and marketing, to Clorox. There were certainly a few questions about Clorox's environmental commitment, and a boatload of unquestionable facts on its low standards on labor issues. I blogged more here and here about how this exposed authoritarian tactics of Sierra's national board and then-CEO Carl Pope.

But, when a big, rich (yes, relatively) environmental group pays just $33K a year for copy editors for its magazine, with a job based in downtown San Francisco, we know which "green" is speaking. That's even more true with the made-in-China tchotchkes combined with the wasteful amount of mail, snail mail, not email, sent for solicitation efforts.

I'll stop now before I get into the territory of a new blog post, which I will soon enough anyway.

Perry has a few related thoughts.

As for those other issues of despair? It seems like racial issues in America have slowed to about the  same glacial rate of progress.

Texas Greens discuss asking guv candidate to not campaign — DON'T!

Kat Swift leads voting at the 2014 Texas Green Party convention.

When I lived back in Dallas (and if I'm going to live in Texas a lot longer, please, somebody help me get back to the New York City of Texas), I went to a few Dallas-area Green Party meetings, around 2007-2008. I also saw and heard Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney speak in Fort Worth in 2008, and talked to some Fort Worth Greens while there.

So, even though I'm not an active Green Party member, I'm not unfamiliar with the party overall. And, earlier today, I went to Austin to catch at least parts of the Texas Green Party's 2014 convention.

Unfortunately, gubernatorial candidate Brandon Parmer and Senatorial candidate Emily “Spicybrown” Sanchez were both not at the convention. Now, Sanchez is in Del Rio, but Parmer is in the Metroplex.

At the same time, both are real people with real jobs of some sort, I assume. Both of them may not work Monday-Friday jobs.

But Parmer’s absence was of import for one other reason.

Should Parmer cede, or run non-actively, in the gubernatorial race, in the idea that this would help Democratic candidate Wendy Davis against Greg Abbott? Blogging friend Perry said that, before I got to the convention, there was a fair degree of discussion about that. Most people present opposed that. Proponents mentioned Nader 2000 and his ticket splitting.

First, let’s not forget that a butterfly ballot poorly designed by a Democratic election official in Florida, Theresa LePore, was the primary reason Al Gore lost (apparently) the popular vote in Florida. Let’s also not forget that Gore’s slow and half-assed legal response, plus a lot of other Democratic bigwigs not being totally sold on Al Gore, are part of why he ultimately lost Bush v. Gore. Finally, let’s not forget that Al Gore didn’t become “Al Gore” until he stopped being an elected political official.

Perry's got more on this issue. Per him, the one actual reason to fault Nader is that he originally said he wouldn't campaign in swing states.

Anyway, this is like begging for table scraps, first. And, it’s expecting that Democrats will offer scraps and that they’ll be scraps worth seeking. More on that below, as it ties in with …

Second, what do Greens have to offer besides “not actively campaigning,” and, given previous Green gubernatorial results (and not state Supreme Court races where no Democrat was running) of how much value is that. Uhh, probably not a lot.

It’s unfortunate that the US electoral system in general is stacked in favor of a two-party breakout. It’s more unfortunate that, in terms of ballot access, Texas is stacked against third-party ballot access. But, just as I generally have opposed Greens running a “safe states” presidential campaign, to the point that I blogged that in 2004, 2008 or 2012, I would have voted Green for president if I lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, so I believe the same here.

That said, what would the Democrats pay in return for Parmer suspending, or semi-suspending, his campaign? Since Texas, like more and more states in their anti-third party animus, doesn’t allow “fusion” candidates or slates, Democrats couldn’t endorse in any way a Green candidate for the Texas Supreme Court. Other than Democrats directing some fundraisers to help the Greens (and why?) there’s nothing else I can think of that the Texas Democratic Party would do.

As noted above, outside those judicial races where Democrats don’t have candidates, and where Greens have delayed announcing their candidates as part of a filing slate until the Democratic-Republican primary filing deadline, Green candidates have yet to draw well. And, Democrats know that. The Wendy Davis campaign surely values such an offer by Parmer, were it to be made, at about 10 cents on the dollar compared to how Texas Greens might value it, or at least some of them.

Third, this is trading on an assumption by those Greens, one shared by many Texas Democrats, that the showdown between Davis and Greg Abbott is likely to be very close.

Although the Davis campaign, after a thorough shakedown, is starting to get its sea legs, and Abbott is suddenly playing a media disappearing act, I don’t really share those beliefs.

Readers can see my poll, at right, as to whether Davis will outperform Bill White vs. Rick Perry from 2010. Pluses for Davis? She’s more charismatic than White and has run previous non-state campaigns (her state senate seat vs. city of Houston for mayor) against tougher and more uphill opposition. Also a possible plus, though somewhat mishandled so far? Her personal story.

Minuses? We were at Rick Perry fatigue in 2010. Note how unpopular he was in 2006. Abbott, other than general conservative Republican baggage, doesn’t yet have much of “Rick Perry association” baggage. I also think he’s better campaigner than Perry, when he’s on his stride. When he’s not? Well, Rick Perry never would have publicly appeared with Ted Nugent, so this may be a wash. I certainly think he’s a more aggressive elbow-thrower as a candidate than Perry. I think that’s overall a plus, but could backfire.

So, if Abbott-Davis is closer than the 55-42 split for Perry-White, I don’t think it’s going to be that much closer. Let’s say, in what might be a bit generous on my part, that it’s 52-45. That’s still 7 percentage points and far away from a Brandon Parmer semi-withdrawal making any difference. The newest polling numbers exactly reflect this.

So, as a bargaining tool? It’s non-existent.

As a matter of party-building? It’s totally wrong. Do it once, and why shouldn’t Democrats expect you to do it again. Ditto on people who aren’t that involved with politics and to whom you might want to reach out in the future.

As a matter of political ethics? Idealism sometimes has to be tempered with a certain bit of realism, but that’s not at stake here. And, speaking of political ethics, Davis herself offers reasons to be wary of such a deal.

So, don’t do it, Greens. Accept that you have a ways, a long ways, to go, not come, baby, on your contested statewide races. Recognize that a cheap, quickie cohabitation with the Democrats on the gubernatorial race isn’t the way to keep going further. That’s the bottom line.

Well, there is one thing Democrats could offer. (And it would help if Libertarians would similarly prod Republicans.) And that is to change Texas law to allow fusion candidates. (Actually, I have thought of a second offer that would be "worth it": Democratic support for public campaign financing of Texas elections.)

Short of a Democratic (and, really, also, a Republican-to-Libertarian) pledge to support such a change, there’s really nothing the Democrats can offer the Greens.

And, this isn’t just about Texas Greens. It’s about Green parties in general. Don’t bargain unless you can get something concrete, and valuable, in return.

Al Jazeera + Al Gore = Al Air America?

No, jokes and multilingual puns aside, it's serious. Al Jazeera TV wants to buy Current, Al Gore's cable network.


And why not?

Per the story, it gets Al Jazeera plus current highly limited US broadcasting of its own network. And, Current is currently making some dinero. And, present editorial staff at Current might benefit from piggybacking in the Middle East on Al Jazeera there.

And, that said, contra the Yahoo story, or updating what shouldn't need updating, in 2011, Dave Marash, former DC anchor for Al Jazeera, said it was NOT anti-American, according to his Wikipedia page.

Al Jazeera plus Current could provide something better than originally hoped for on Air America, too.

Plus, the Pam Gellar type Islamophobe wingnuts would shit bricks royally, too. That's reason enough for this merger.

And, beyond this, why shouldn't we have more opportunities to see Al Jazeera? Screw Comcast et al.

Or screw Time Warner, which dropped Current just after the takeover.

Kyoto carbon poetry

A comment from a friend on Google+, after he posted a haiku, led me to ask myself if I had a copy of this 1998 Kyoto treaty talks op-ed that I wrote all in haiku. And, I did. And yes, what follows was an actual op-ed column. (Small weekly paper, where I was publisher, and nobody to say 'You can't do that.')

Clinton seeks freer trade
With Chilean producers
Free wine, grapes, and fruit

Gephardt says "Never"
Dreaming Presidential dreams
Gore stands idly by

Newt and his minions
Will swap taxes for tariffs
Clinton: "See me next year"

He's to Kyoto
To cut back greenhouse gas growth
Subtle irony

Speaking, not doing
More global warming threatens
With his ev'ry word

Business USA
Claims the climate data is
Still insufficient

They preach doom and gloom
For our proud, strong economy
From mandated change

Clinton will stand and speak
To please Japan, Europe, home
And yet fall far short

Back in Washington
Ere his Orient Express
Reno had good news

Investigation
Of campaign violations
Is terminated

Clinton breathes easy
As does loyal Gore besides
But is it over

On the back benches
Hot Republican firebreathers
Demand impeachment

The outside person
Knows all hands are money-green
Has cynic disgust

NYT's Linda Greenhouse shows herself a travesty

Another refutation of the "liberal" NYT myth here.

But, an informal proof of how much the Peter Principle works at major news organizations.

In a special set of mini-columns on the 10th anniversary of Bush v. Gore, columnist and former SCOTUS reporter Linda Greenhouse says this of Bush v. Gore:

I’m often asked for my thoughts on Bush v. Gore, and liberal audiences are often disappointed when I describe the decision not as a travesty or tragedy, but as a bad hair day. By this, I mean that it was just something that happened, a weird gust of wind that blew through the court

Bush v. Gore was "just something that happened"? The "Brooks Brothers mob"? The armada of lawyers, led by James Baker? That all was "just something that happened"?

Of course, earlier on in her comments, Greenhouse shows how idiotic she was back then:

I assured my editors that the court’s conservative majority believed too deeply in federalism ever to entertain a challenge to how Florida was counting the votes.

Right. Sure. The court wasn't quite as activist then as now, because it wasn't as far right. But, Nino Scalia, above all, already showed plenty of activism more than a decade ago.

Here's more the truth, from Larry Tribe:

I was then stunned when questions from the bench to my co-counsel David Boies, who argued the second and ultimate case, hinted that the court might make permanent its earlier decision to stop the recount temporarily.

But not even those hints prepared me for the 5-4 late-night decision in which the court announced that equal protection demanded a more uniform approach to counting the ballots — only to add that, having itself run out the clock, it sadly had no choice but to end all the counting that very night (Catch-22!).

But, nooooo .... this all was "just something that happened." At least the NYT op-ed page, overall, isn't quite as bad as the WaPost. Certainly not on house editorials.

Not so fast on carbon offsets, Al Gore

Bernd Heinrich notes that Kyoto provided offsets for planting trees, but non for preserving them. And, Copenhagen didn't address that.

So, as he starkly puts it, would-be self-professed environmentalists have incentives to clear-cut forests and then replace them with monocrop trees, but not to preserve anything.

'I'll cut waste and fraud'

Ahh, more neoliberalism from Obama.

Haven't we heard this all before?

Like Gore's "Reinventing Government"?

Spare me.

ABC in the pocket of Big Oil?

Why else is it refusing to run Al Gore’s latest global warming infomercial?

Is Al Gore an enviro-hypocrite?

It’s a fine line between dodging conservative bullets about “nanny state paternalism” on the one hand, and giving a pass to jet-setters, on the other.

It’s arguable that Gore is falling too much to the second side, though.

When we point out that David Beckham has recently been given the dubious title of having the worst carbon footprint in history — clocking up enough air miles to fly to the moon and owning 15 gas-guzzling cars, Mr Gore shifts uncomfortably in his seat.

He knows what is coming next.

When asked what he would say to the football icon — a hero to millions — about his impact on the environment, Gore refuses to be drawn.

He gives a huge belly-laugh at the notion that Posh and Becks could invest in an environmentally-friendly hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius.

He careful considers his answer before saying: “I don’t think that’s my place. I don’t want to get into personally criticising anyone.”

It’s a charge that has been levied against Obama in the past. And, we know who owns Great Britain’s Sun.

Rupert Murdoch could be more honest and just write an op-ed instead of this type of journalism, right?

Well, on the other hand, shouldn’t Gore be preaching to the unelected rich and famous as well as the elected? Whether they should be or not, we expect athletes, and actors and such, to be role models. And, whether we want them to be or not, they often become some sort of polestar to adults, not just children.

So, yes, if Al Gore thinks global warning is that serious (as I do), and he thinks it serious enough to scold George W. Bush, he should scold David Beckham, too.

Gore nomination now looking more likely

Gore strategists are now talking about it; that includes that this has been something mapped out by his inner circle last May.

In other words, Gore is trying to, and could, pull off the greatest and slickest political comeback since (NO, not you, Bill Clinton, sit down) Dick Nixon in 1968.

If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the "super-delegates" - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.

So, the obvious question is, how much, if any, courting of superdelegates is Gore himself or his surrogates doing as we speak/type/read?

At the same time, “more likely” is still a relevant term.

And, who would support it more?

Obama, of course. He would accept the VP nod from Gore, and know that even with two successful Gore terms, he’s still in his early 50s. Plus, given how the blood worsened between Gore and Hillary Clinton from 1998 or so on, he’s not making that offer to her anyway.

Gore misses boat on call for ‘green India’ by ignoring growth rate

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore spoke in New Dehli with co-Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an Indian himself recently, and said India could be a major “green” country with 21st century technology.

However, he missed one HUGE roadblock to that.

And, that would be the semi-official Indian governmental policy of surpassing China in population.

India’s population growth rate of 1.6 percent per year, a birthrate of 22.69 per 1,000 and an average age of just under 25,per the CIA Factbook. and worse than, for comparison, Iran and Indonesia, and as bad as Egypt, are guaranteed to make a “green” India pretty difficult.

We have got to have U.S. leaders who will honestly talk population control with more developing nations.

Gore says India can lead green world and still grow

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore spoke in New Dehli with co-Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an Indian himself. Gore said there was nothing wrong with aspirations to be a modern society, but that India needed to reach them with 21st century technology. It’s a tough sell, as the story notes:

Developing countries say they cannot yet make commitments to cut their emissions because it will hamper their economic growth.

Last month, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urged rich countries to ensure technology transfers to developing nations to combat climate change under a transparent global regime.

India late last year slammed a UN call for developing countries to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent over three decades starting in 2020, saying it did not “address the key issues of equality and equity.”

But, it’s a necessary sell that Gore and Pachauri are making. India is the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitting country, at 6 percent of the world’s total and increasing.

Eleanor gee I’m Swellanor about Gore

Eleanor Clift earns her McLaughlin Group moniker with her hankering for Al Gore to get the nod of a knotted-up, brokered Democratic presidential convention.

Is it possible? Well, Clift notes the party’s “good conscience” rule for delegates could supply the necessary latitude:

We have the Ted Kennedy forces to thank for the freedom of choice that all delegates enjoy, not just the supers. In 1980, Kennedy argued for an open convention, while President Carter was determined to keep convention delegates bound. With a 600-delegate margin over Kennedy, Carter prevailed. As a result, any delegate voting against the candidate he or she was elected to represent could be replaced by an alternate and thrown off the convention floor. The rule was strict and enforceable. Kennedy couldn't dislodge any of the Carter delegates. Two years later, after Carter lost the election, the phrase “in all good conscience” was inserted into the rule, belatedly giving delegates the latitude Kennedy had sought.

Clift advises the Clinton campaign has already been eyeballing the rule, but doubts she’ll get traction with it, in what must qualify as the punditry understatement of the week if not the month.

My take? The only real possibility for this is if Obama doesn’t have the nomination bagged on elected delegates alone, especially if he winds up needing half or more of the superdelegates to get the nomination.

If we get to that point, by the time we get there, supers will probably have a long-lasting distaste for Clinton in their mouths. But, they will know we have gotten to that point because Obama has feet of clay or a glass jaw, choose your metaphor.

Now, if that happens, does Gore want it? He will get targeted not only for the stuff that came up in 2000, but comments about his McMansion making him a hypocrite on global warming, and a challenge to say just what he will do about global warming if he thinks it’s so serious.

The flip side is, he’s been bloodied, he is “looser” now, and he could flip the hypocrisy by demonstrating that he could run a “green” day-to-day campaign, relatively speaking. And, he’s even more free of Slick Willie entanglement than eight years ago.

The flip side to that is, he’s won the Nobel Peace Prize. Does he want to come down off the mountain?

Right now, if the Clift scenario threatened to play out the way it would have to, I would rate the chance of Gore accepting a draft as 20-80 percent against.

Al Gore says Yes to gay marriage

Damn, this and climate change, maybe Democrats need to draft him anyway.

Bill, Hillary and Al: The troika splits and part of why Gore lost in 2000

In addition to how much the MSM might have picked on Gore and given Bush the nod of the soft bigotry of low expectations, there were more legitimate reasons for Gore’s loss, and I’m not talking butterfly ballots or Ralph Nader.

Gore was sometimes wooden, sometimes preachy on the stump, and like it or not, American presidential contests are in part about personality.

But, there was another reason. Besides Gore’s concern about distancing himself from Clinton, the distancing went both ways.

In the new Vanity Fair, Clinton White House staffer Sally Bedell Smith spills all sorts of beans including:

1. Bill and Hillary really were co-presidents of a sort in many of their workings
2. Bill basically felt he owned Hillary anything she wanted in the way of Senate race support, fundraising, etc. in exchange for her having stood beside him in l’affaire Lewinsky.
3. From the time she decided to run for Moynihan’s Senate seat almost immediately after Pat announced his retirement, Hillary made a conscious effort to cut Al out of the loop of the lion’s share of Bill’s support, and to cut Tipper out of her personal ring as well.
4. Well, well, before this, Al and Hillary competed strongly, not just competed, but strongly, for Bill’s ear. And, often, Al was the fifth wheel or odd man out, take your pick.
5. Smith also rehashes some of the subtle putdowns (not nearly as bad as Ike for Dick in 1960 but putdowns, nonetheless) Bill had for Al.

This, to me, does a fair amount of explaining why Al isn’t running for president.

I don’t doubt that he’s not 100 percent interested right now, but the Hillary factor is at play.

He’d have to compete with her for former WH staffers and fundraisers, for one thing. For another, the contest, because of everything listed above, if entered by Al, could have gotten very personal, even fratricidal/sororicidal, very quickly.

The VF article is an excerpt from Smith’s upcoming book, “For Love of Politics—Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years.”

The U.N. — where Gore really belongs in a few years

In a little under a decade, the U.N. Secretary-General position will open again, and, IIRC, it will be the Americas’ turn to put forth the “consensus” candidate, per the informal global rotation.

Doorknob bless Gore and some people still pushing him for president, but it’s pretty clear to me that he could do a better job running the U.N.