So... I Gotta Ask... Is Al Gore The New Jane Hamsher ???

[WillyT]

And if not, why not???

:shrug:

Former Vice President Al Gore, one of the leading advocates of using public policy to combat climate change, calls out President Barack Obama for failing to call for "bold action" on the issue in a lengthy essay published Wednesday by Rolling Stone.

Though critical of Obama, Gore gives him credit for some minor accomplishments like increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards and securing a "rhetorical agreement" at the Copenhagen climate summit. But he goes on to insist that the president's greatest power is the "power to pursuade" -- and he chides Obama for not using it.

"He has simply not made the case for action," Gore writes. "He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public."

He continues: "Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States."

Gore's full essay, clocking in at over 7,000 words, can be found on news stands this Friday, or on Rolling Stone's website.

<snip>

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/22/gore-obama-has-failed-to-call-for-bold-action-on-climate-change/

:shrug:

[amborin]

1. he will be, for speaking the inconvenient truth about a total lack of leadership, etc. K&R

[Dept of Beer]

27. Obama has shown leadership...

just not in the direction that most had hoped for.

[TheWraith]

2. In case you didn't notice, Gore's essay specifically applauded Obama on many issues.

And Gore explicitly pointed out that his own criticisms would be taken out of context by those who wanted to attack Obama.

[Wilms]

7. There are many who applaud a range of Obama's efforts and accomplishments while criticizing others.

But I understand that's a hard concept for some to take in.

[dionysus]

17. misconception. the beef obama supporters have is with the folks who make "criticism" a 24/7 smear

campaign.
criticism is one thing, a dedicated mission to complain no matter what and resort to hyperbole and\or lies is another.

i doubt you'll find any supporter who touts the "he's perfect, a sweet bebe jesus" line.

[TheWraith]

20. + 100.00. nt

[Dept of Beer]

29. The free will critique

The opposed will charge smear

Straw dogs run poorly

[Wilms]

34. My assertion doesn't disclaim either of yours.

It stands on it's own, yet gives rise to the critique you've offered--which gets tiring.

[tekisui]

3. I just wish they would be honest and say they only accept WH press releases.

[Arkana]

18. Yeah, but WE'RE the ones guilty of serial strawmanning.

Uh huh. Yup.

I'd rather read WH press releases than the crap that streams from Jane Hamsher's anus.

[Demit]

4. Why can't they each be themselves, with their own particular observations?

Which are both valid. Why would you need to make an equivalency? I gotta ask.

[TheWraith]

21. Taking Republican money in order to smear Obama is not a valid point of view. nt

[Mass]

5. So, raw story is no better than Fox. Read the editorial yourself.

You will see that, while Gore indeed said with a lot of oratory precautions (he knows the media well) that Obama should have used the bully pulpit more, he spends a lot of time complimenting Obama and blasting the media.

[dionysus]

6. for starters, Al didn't write a FDL style hit piece, second, he even predicted he'd be take out of

context.

third, he has something hamsher lacks; credibility.

try harder.

[villager]

14. meaning, then, you agree with him?

Perhaps that Garcia avatar isn't wasted, after all...

[dionysus]

15. obama could have put forth more of an effort on global warming, sure.

i doubt any legislation could have been passed on the issue, but that's another story.

Gore's article and hamsher style hit jobs are worlds apart.

[villager]

33. well, heck. We agree more than we don't, in that case!

:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

8. No, I wouldn't say that, not at all.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and paperclips, IMO; not even in the same category except that they are public figures.

Gore's mixed critique is what it needs to be for him to have an impact; there's always more that can be done and he's holding Obama to a higher standard. Not an impossibly high standard but one that encourages further action.

Hamsher, on the other hand, seems to be less focused and I don't find her criticism nearly as constructive.

But that's just me.

:patriot:

[pnwmom]

9. He's not suggesting that anyone withhold votes from Democrats.

Neither is Howard Dean.

[xphile]

24. You do get that the Democratic party is not entitled to anyone's vote right?

Votes are not an entitlement they are earned. I would suggest the party start earning them rather than assuming that they'll get them by default. People have a funny way of doing what they damn well please.

[pnwmom]

25. Of course. Everyone is free to throw their votes away.

It's the American system.

[JI7]

10. i guess for those who don't read or ignore what Gore actually wrote

and have an agenda.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

12. Not at all. They are worlds apart. Gore gives a nuanced critique of Obama, while clearly not calling

for any enabling of Republicans. In fact, he freely admits and even emphasizes the huge constraints on policy from Congress, and he even said he was worried that some of Obama's critics might misuse what he said.

On the other hand, basically everything Jane writes implies that the next logical step is to enable Republicans in 2012. The very purpose of her writing is precisely to bash Obama, using whatever bullshit pretext she can find. This is precisely the opposite of Gore.

[Swede]

13. Exactly.

:toast:

[LoZoccolo]

16. No one is on the automatic unrecommend list for mere criticism. n/t

[WillyT]

19. Bwahahahahahaha !!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[dionysus]

28. try harder next time willy.

:hi:

[TwilightGardener]

22. Former VP and climate change expert vs...attention-seeking blogger? No, I wouldn't equate the two.

Al Gore commands some respect and consideration of his views because of his stature and achievements.

[NYCGirl]

23. God no. Al Gore is so far ahead of Jane Hacksher that they

might as well be in a separate galaxy.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EC]

30. From what I understand he was

criticizing the media and congress more than Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

31. No. For one thing he doesn't associate with Grover Norquist as far as I know.

[Bobbie Jo]

32. What a ridiculous comparison.

[emulatorloo]

35. Al Gore is way better informed than Hamsher. And he is not an ideologue.

Gore does not need to create "controversy" to get hits in order to charge higher ad rates.

Additionally his arguments are fair and rational.

[backscatter712]

36. Of course, the media's taking Gore out of context to make it look like a vitriolic attack.

When it's not.

[scheming daemons]

37. No... Jane Hamsher accepts money from the GOP, Gore does not

...

That's one big difference.

[tishaLA]

38. Gore was reasoned, constructive, and acknowledged political realities