2008 Woodie Awards
Viewpoint
Nobel to Gore: a less-than-noble gesture?
J.B. Sivanich
Issue date: 10/19/07 Section: Opinions & Editorials
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last week it was announced that Al Gore, along with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is odd, because if you check the blogosphere, peace is the last thing that the announcement created.
Both sides of the political spectrum have been riled up by last Friday's announcement, with the right questioning the exorbitant electricity bills of Gore's Nashville manor and with some on the left calling on him to run in the upcoming presidential race.
First things first, Al Gore should not run for president. Gore recognizes that by not running he will be able to effect more change -- especially now with the Nobel -- on the issue that matters most to him. He is right to say that global warming is not "a political issue," and even more right to recognize that it is more than an American issue. A presidency or even a presidential run would slow down his momentum and his ability to change popular opinion about global warming around the world.
Plus, for the first time in years, the Democrats have a strong field of candidates and -- at least at this point -- look poised to take the White House without much of a fight from the drained Republican side. Much of the buildup around Gore's potential presidential run comes from restless Democratic party hardliners who are still insecure after Kerry's failure to unseat Bush.
But much can be learned from the publicity surrounding Fred Thompson's entrance into the race a few weeks ago. Thompson entered the troubled Republican field with sizeable expectations, and even greater hype, but after a few weeks of uninspired campaigning and a below-poor debate showing, his bid is dead in the water.
It is not like Gore is the only "environmentally friendly" politician in the field today. Barack Obama has pledged to implement a carbon "cap and trade" system if elected, and is running a carbon-neutral campaign, which is matched only by John Edwards in the Democratic field.
Both sides of the political spectrum have been riled up by last Friday's announcement, with the right questioning the exorbitant electricity bills of Gore's Nashville manor and with some on the left calling on him to run in the upcoming presidential race.
First things first, Al Gore should not run for president. Gore recognizes that by not running he will be able to effect more change -- especially now with the Nobel -- on the issue that matters most to him. He is right to say that global warming is not "a political issue," and even more right to recognize that it is more than an American issue. A presidency or even a presidential run would slow down his momentum and his ability to change popular opinion about global warming around the world.
Plus, for the first time in years, the Democrats have a strong field of candidates and -- at least at this point -- look poised to take the White House without much of a fight from the drained Republican side. Much of the buildup around Gore's potential presidential run comes from restless Democratic party hardliners who are still insecure after Kerry's failure to unseat Bush.
But much can be learned from the publicity surrounding Fred Thompson's entrance into the race a few weeks ago. Thompson entered the troubled Republican field with sizeable expectations, and even greater hype, but after a few weeks of uninspired campaigning and a below-poor debate showing, his bid is dead in the water.
It is not like Gore is the only "environmentally friendly" politician in the field today. Barack Obama has pledged to implement a carbon "cap and trade" system if elected, and is running a carbon-neutral campaign, which is matched only by John Edwards in the Democratic field.
Be the first to comment on this story