Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Akash]

Eric I'm not thrilled by any of the Dems - not even Gore - but I think Sabin is correct: a Gore/Obama ticket would be tough to beat, even for Guiliani.

And is he really any worse than Hillary? Are ANY of the Dems worse than Hillary?

[Eric]

Nor should he.

[Sonic Youth]

He's not running.

[taki15]

Isn't that where we're technically at already? I refuse to believe that I'm smarter than the heads of the Democratic party. Hilary Clinton is unelectable. The good news is that the Republicans showed their hands too early by this incessant punditry all but predicting a Hilary sweep into office. Karl Rove said it upon his adjourn from office, but it's all just a red herring to get the Democrats to run an unelectable candidate. She may have the most money but da bitch don't bring anything, she only alienates: moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats, and anybody who would even consider voting Republican. A Hilary campaign promotes a Guiliani candidacy.

Not to doubt you guys, I am not even an American after all, but aren't you a bit overreacting?
I saw some recent polls which show that Hillary's numbers have risen steadily over the last months. It seems to me that what Chuck Schumer said(the more the people get to know her, the more they like her) might be right after all.

And on the other hand, Giuliani's likeability has fallen precipitously over the same period: he began with 70% last January and now he is at only 49%.
And it seems that while Giuliani was very good at every debate, Clinton was no slouch either.

[Heksagon]

G.B. Shaw is the only Nobel Prize winner who has also won an Oscar, the two most prestigious cultural awards in the world. Three other Nobel Prize winners - John Steinbeck, Jean-Paul Sartre and Harold Pinter - have been nominated for an Oscar (or several ones). I don't think there are any others, but I could be wrong about that. However, there are probably more Oscar winners nominated for a Nobel Prize, but the Nobel Commitee only releases information about the nominees fifty years after the nomination.

[Eric]

Hilary Clinton is unelectable.

In a two-party system, no one is unelectable ... except for Democrats.

[OscarGuy]

Pinter has no Oscar.

[Okri]

Wierd. I thought Pinter, with his record, would've been another.

[dws1982]

As much as the media tries to tell you otherwise, Al Gore has not won an Oscar. The Best Documentary Feature Oscar was not presented to Gore personally--only to Davis Guggenheim. George Bernard Shaw remains the only Oscar/Nobel winner.

[anonymous1980]

Al Gore has received an Oscar (well, technically not him but everyone says he won), an Emmy and a Nobel Prize all in the same year. That has got to be a record.

[Akash]

And who better to get other governments to recognize and act than a politician? To say that politics isn't involved is an invalid assessment.

OscarGuy, I couldn't agree with you more on this one! If anything it's shameful that our government didn't just drop the ball on this one but actively tried to suppress evidence of global warming as well.

Today's NY Times Editorial I think says it best:
October 13, 2007
Editorial
A Prize for Mr. Gore and Science



One can generate a lot of heartburn thinking about all of the things that would be better about this country and the world if the Supreme Court had done the right thing and ruled for Al Gore instead of George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Gore certainly hasn’t let his disappointment stop him from putting the time since to very good use.

Yesterday, the Nobel committee celebrated that persistence and awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Gore and a panel of United Nations scientists for their efforts to raise awareness of the clear and present danger of global warming.

The committee said that the former vice president “is probably the single individual who has done most” to create worldwide understanding of what needs to be done to halt the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. It credited the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for creating “an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

What the citation didn’t mention but needs to be said is that it shouldn’t have to be left to a private citizen — even one so well known as Mr. Gore — or a panel of scientists to raise that alarm or prove what is now clearly an undeniable link or champion solutions to a problem that endangers the entire planet.

That should be, and must be the job of governments. And governments — above all the Bush administration — have failed miserably.

There will be skeptics who ask what the Peace Prize has to do with global warming. The committee answered that unhesitatingly with its warning that climate change, if unchecked, could unleash massive migrations, violent competitions for resources and, ultimately, threaten the “security of mankind.”

There will also be those who complain that this prize — like the committee’s earlier awards to Jimmy Carter and the chief United Nations nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei — is an intentional slap at President Bush. It should be. We only wish that it would finally wake up the president.

While other leaders are beginning to recognize the urgency of climate change and the need for ambitious and costly solutions, Mr. Bush and his administration still drag behind: conceding the obvious only when there is no remaining choice, boycotting any initiative that is not their own and rejecting any action that might cut into the immediate profits of industry.

All this was on depressing display last month at Mr. Bush’s summit on global warming, where he again refused to accept the necessity of obligatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. His refusal to lead has made it far easier for China and others to refuse to act.

Having squandered the last seven years, Mr. Bush is unlikely to change. Mr. Gore and the United Nations panel of scientists have shown how much citizens with courage and determination can do.

Now it’s up to Congress, the presidential candidates and other world leaders to take up their challenge and the challenge of the Nobel committee. We cannot afford to squander any more time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....d=print

[Akash]

My bad. I must be confusing 2000 and 2004.

You're right about Guiliani and my god, isn't this what many of us were afraid of from the beginning? I don't care if he marries two more women in the next year while wearing a dress - he's STILL seen as the guy who was there when the towers fell (we're such a stupid country), and he's STILL seen as a moderate in a country that loves the middle ground (we're really, REALLY stupid).

Unless the Dems wake up and realize we still live in a largely sexist, racist country and even without that no one is passionate about Hullary to begin with - unless that happens, Guiliani will be our next President.



Edited By Akash on 1192216976

[Sabin]

Isn't that where we're technically at already? I refuse to believe that I'm smarter than the heads of the Democratic party. Hilary Clinton is unelectable. The good news is that the Republicans showed their hands too early by this incessant punditry all but predicting a Hilary sweep into office. Karl Rove said it upon his adjourn from office, but it's all just a red herring to get the Democrats to run an unelectable candidate. She may have the most money but da bitch don't bring anything, she only alienates: moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats, and anybody who would even consider voting Republican. A Hilary campaign promotes a Guiliani candidacy.

Edwards isn't making the name for himself that he needs to and Obama is a pussy. That's pretty close to deadlock to me. I really hope that Gore runs. The problem right now is that Guiliani is a fucking pitbull in debates.

And you're mistaken, Akash. The youth voter turnout in '04 was the highest it had been since '68 and it went strongly for Kerry.



Edited By Sabin on 1192216583

[Akash]

A Gore/Obama ticket would dominate -- fucking dominate! -- in '08. The youth turnout would be unbelievable.

I think you're right Sabin although let's not forget that many of us thought anti-war sentiment in 2004 would bring out the youth vote in record numbers. Instead, the youth vote remained painfully low and the people who showed up in record numbers were evangelicals - for Bush.

But man, it would be delicious to see Hillary Clinton dissolve in the heat of a Gore/Obama ticket. That alone would be worth it.

[Big Magilla]

There is no way Gore will run for President again unless he is drafted by a deadlocked convention.

As for the Nobel Prize, it may be naive of me, but I like it when good things happen to good people. Al Gore has been working tirelessly to bring global warming to the world's attention for more than twenty years. It's only now that we are listening.

Preventing further global warming as much as we can will lead to the stability of the world which in turn will prevent possible conflicts in the future. It is well within the scope of "peace" consideration.