The global-warming skeptics at the launched a today targeting — who else? — former Vice President Al Gore.
The $30,000 buy is small as far as national-ad campaigns go, but itwill run on cable over the next two weeks in Boston, Phoenix, Orlando,Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C.
Fine. It's a waste of money. Clearly, this is a right-wing think-tank dedicated to protecting the oil industry. It proves that Al Gore represents a legitimate threat to polluters, therefore he has accomplished a lot already.
There's a YouTube user that I have been following for some time now, and have posted his videos in thepast. He is a humble science teacher that puts Global Warming into perspectivein a way that a simple mind like mine can understand. After watching his videos,It's hard to comprehend comments which totally dismiss any type of concernregarding GW (Global Warming). Irespect other's comments and views, but often they are along the lines of "TheEarth has been warming and cooling forever and Al Gore uses more electricitythat anyone, and I'm driving my SUV, so there!!", without any realargument.
Watch this video (and a few of his others), even if you don't agree with him,they are entertaining to say the least.
Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.
Best-selling author.
Environmental activist.
Academy Award winner.
And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner--he shares the prize with the UN'sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for "their efforts to buildup and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change, andto lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteractsuch change."
for his research and ability to draw attention to the issue of global climate change.
If you think Al Gore is above Washington politics; if you think he is the most qualified Democrat; if you think he has both the judgment and experience to lead; if you think he is best able to reform our energy policy; if you want to change the world -- . At least 167,630 people have done just that.
Early this morning, former vice president and current environmental activist :
Now the Nobel Committee has done its part, awarding Gore the PeacePrize for being "probably the single individual who has done most tocreate greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to beadopted" to combat climate change, according to his citation. (TheUnited Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was also ajoint winner of the prize.) And so, after the obligatory spasms ofcelebration and the equally obligatory gnashing of Rush Limbaugh'steeth, will Americans finally get to enjoy one of the great spectaclesin political history, as Gore's ultimate honor levitates him beyond hisleading rival, Hillary Clinton, and into the Oval Office?
According to the , Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change were awarded the prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge aboutman-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measuresthat are needed to counteract such change."
So now to the big question: is Gore getting back into politics? Only time will tell. However, he is leaving his China trip earlier than expected so he can fly back to for Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
All eyes will be on the , when early tomorrow morning we will whether Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. If the former vice president does receive the honor, it is speculated that he will consider running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Draft Gore movement, which released a yesterday in the New York Times, is engaging in a full-court press to push Gore to run. As of early Thursday morning, have signed the . The group even unveiled a web ad encouraging Gore to throw his name into the hat:
What would this do to the Democratic race? It would stop Hillary Clinton's momentum -- at least that part is for sure. How Obama would be affected remains to be seen. It certainly would push Edwards out of the limelight -- unfortunate for the former North Carolina Senator, because he is falling further out of the top-tier each day. With Gore in the race, Edwards would lose a significant amount of media time. As for Dodd, Richardson and Biden, they probably would not continue.
The world will watch on Friday to find out whether former vice president and global warming activist wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the . And if he does, bloggers and the traditional media are speculating that he would jump into the presidential race, creating a whole laundry list of problems for Clinton, Obama and especially John Edwards.
notes that, based on Gore's rather interesting previous statements, none of us should count him out just yet:
Late last spring, when he was busy barnstorming on talk shows topromote Assault on Reason, Gore was constantly asked by interviewers,"Are you going to run?" Though he always said that he was not, he'dembellished his answer with a coy qualifier that left open a sliver ofdaylight for a possible candidacy. Like he told Larry King, "I am notthinking about being a candidate. I have no plans to be a candidate.But, yes, it's true, I have not made a so-called Sherman statement andruled it out for all time. I see no reason or necessity to do that."
Around that time, the New York Times quoted Gore as saying, "Havingspent 30 years as part of the political dialogue, I don't know why a600-day campaign is taken as a given, and why people who aren't in it600 days out for the convenience of whatever brokers want to close thedoor and narrow the field and say, 'This is it, now let's place yourbets.' If they want to do that, fine. I don't have to play that game."
True to his word, Gore hasn't play that game. Could the Nobel becomethe catalyst for Citizen Gore to tell America, "I'm in!" Furthermore,will he be able to raise sufficient funds, build a campaign staff withfield offices in key primary states, and re-introduce himself toDemocratic voters as their next president?
A few things to consider:
Without any field offices open and no strategists hired, could he build a winning campaign in less than three months?
If he jumps in but does not win, the huge let-down would hurt any chances of him trying again in 2012 or 2016.
How would the Clinton Campaign react? How would they go after Gore? On experience? Can't do that! On judgment? Can't do that! On integrity? Nope! On Washington insider status? I don't think so.
We all know Hillary Clinton and Al Gore did not get along. The rivalry even still exists today. As Sally Bedell Smith of Vanity Fair writes, that she despised Al Gore because he represented part of the Washington elite:
"Of course there were tensions," said one of the Clintons' longtimefriends, who recalled private meetings in which Hillary encouraged herhusband to discount Gore's advice by saying, "Bill, you are president.This is your administration." The threesome "at times had the feelingof a brother and sister trying to win the affection not of the fatherbut of another, more powerful older brother," said this friend. Hillaryhad an obvious advantage over Gore, because she and Bill had been onthe same wavelength for so long that they communicated almost bytelepathy. But Gore operated under the assumption that Bill tookHillary's advice only when she claimed an issue as her own, and onlywhen Bill would suffer emotional consequences if he ignored her.
The Clintons resented the Gores because they were products ofWashington's prestigious private schools and its social network, on theA-list for elite Georgetown gatherings such as the annual New Year'sEve party hosted by former Washington Post editor Ben Bradleeand his wife, Sally Quinn. A friend of the Clintons' noted in a journalthat Hillary once said with some bitterness, "Gore gets credit becausehe's a Washington insider and can play the game. Gore is not 'fromsomeplace called Arkansas.'"
Boy have these two people done a complete 180 degree turn. Gore is now the outsider, while Hillary is the very definition of a Washington insider.
While traditional media is labeling Live Earth a ratings , it's also isolating the very group that proves it wrong: Pretty much everyone.
LiveEarth was highlighted all day on UniversalHD and Bravo, each on about a 2 hour delay from what happened live, and each showing only highlights from select artists; NBC did a three-hour recap on network television that night. In the UK, a similar format was followed and in both countries the television ratings were pretty poor. Traditional media blames it on , , and the in the whole process. What's the real reason traditional media thinks Live Earth was a failure? Maybe because they measured its success in the traditional media itself.
The broadcasts weren't on network television (until the recaps), had commercials every ten minutes, interrupted artists to show short films and an unusual commercial for a Space Saver bag that decompresses (I could tell you all about this now), and was too diverse to provide any legitimate substance. It didn't connect viewers with the concert experience. Live Earth was presented like Sportscenter, with highlights from action around the league. All the while television was patting itself on the back for its coverage, two places had legitimate, thorough, and complete coverage of the stellar event: XM Radio and MSN.
XM blocked out six channels (41-46) for the concerts, with each channel playing a live broadcast of each country's concert. In addition, channel 40 was "All Access," giving highlights of all the concerts and announcing when each artist was taking the stage ("Duran Duran just took the stage on channel 46 if you're interested,") to provide a great convenience for sifting through the 100 artists who performed around the globe.
Meanwhile, MSNbroke records with watching the concerts online. There, users had a video stream of every single concert all day long along with announcements of upcoming artists at each stage; as of July 8, MSN also has every artist and concert archived and organized for reviewing on-demand at .
If you had your choice, where would you have watched the concerts? On a saturated, commercial-filled, generalized television stream that's two hours behind, or on a live customizable stream online or on satellite? The answer is obvious to most of us, and it's where ratings fail in almost every instance.
Jericho was canceled after one season because of its poor television ratings. After an outrage by fans brought the show back for another year, CBS conceded that they didn't realize the show had so many fans. Why? Because traditional media measures traditional media; in the industry, self is the only medium that matters. CBS has a website set up for the show () that streams every episode, commercial free, for free. The site also has a message board, cast interviews, commentary episodes, and behind-the-scenes information. No one's quantifying that.
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was supposedly among the this season according to TiVo and DVR services and combined with online viewing on NBC's rewind viewing. It was canceled even when lower-rated shows were left on the air (like 30 Rock). Why? Because traditional media only measures traditional media. It's flawed demographically, it's flawed economically, and it's flawed geographically. Networks strive to achieve the 18-49 demographic and never seem to get them. Why? Because we're all on XM or Sirius, on Youtube or MSN, on The Blue State or Daily Kos or, to be fair, Drudge and [insert conservative blog here because I don't read any]. We've all moved on; we're all sick of the media covering the media, interviewing the media, then reviewing the media and passing judgment on the media. Malkovich Malkovich? Malkovich. Malkovich Malkovich!
Live Earth was billed as a failure because people didn't sit in front of a TV and let a producer pick which songs we watched and from which artists. Ratings fell because someone thought the 18-49s were watching, and they wanted to see a full set from Kanye West instead of from Bon Jovi; they thought Brits wanted to watch the Linkin Park set three times instead of .
There you have the generation gap, the same gap that you already know about because you get your news here instead of by sitting in front of CNN waiting for Wolf Blitzer to tell you what you want to hear.
And on a final note: If the same people who took issue with the profanity at Live Earth took issue with how many Iraqis we kill and how many coal power plants we build, it might be a different world. Live Earth knows where to reach the future of the world, and it succeeded in full. No media necessary.
After listening to Sean Hannity's (among other's) Al Gore and trying to get everyone in the phone bookto say he is a hypocrite, I can't express how pleased I was when AssociatedPress Writer Erik Schelzig about his 'green' lifestyle and his TN home's "green-ness".This information has been out for a couple of week, but is a great"at-a-glance" reference and worthy of having on hand.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Al Gore, the environmental activist stung by criticismover his house's energy efficiency, said Friday that renovations are nearlycomplete to make it a model "green" home
"This plan has been in the works for a long time," the former vicepresident said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The only thingthat has changed is that we're more public about it because of the misleadingattack by a global-warming denier group."
Earlier this year, a conservative group criticized Gore, citing electricbills that were far more than the typical Nashville home. Utility records showed the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
Gore's renovation project, which he said has been in the works for months,seeks to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED,standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council.
Once his upscale neighborhood changed zoning laws earlier this year, Gore wasable to place solar panels on his roof, and he's now preparing to install a geothermal system that will, among other things, drastically reducethe cost of heating his pool.
Gore is also upgrading windows and ductwork, installing more energy-efficientlight bulbs and creating a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management
The home houses offices for Gore and his wife, Tipper, as well as acommercial kitchen for formal events.
Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, thegroup that initially criticized Gore, said the "renovations areobviously in direct response to our finding that he's a hypocrite on the issueof global warming."
WhenHannity tried to get Arnold Schwarzenegger to buy into his "Gore's a hypocrite"theory-smear on 'Hannity's America', the governor responded to
Thegovernor diplomatically brought it up himself. Schwarzenegger said focusing onhow much a public figure contributes to global warming is fair game. "But Idon't think you should crucify someone like that, because if he does so muchgood and inspiring people and changes millions and millions of people to drivewith clean cars and inspires millions of people to use less energy, less waterand all of those things but in the meantime maybe he drives the bigger car, Ithink it is some what of an unfair thing to go and attack him. Yes there is ahypocrisy, absolutely."
On a global warming note: In lastnight's 'BlueNightowl Clips' post, we featured a video titled '', where a rather knowledgeable H.S.science teacher simplifies the global warming issue using common sense,and in a very humble way. His 3 follow-up videos titled ' are more than worthy of viewing.
Recent Comments