Editors rarely put politicians (or ex-politicians) on their covers because such images don’t usually sell magazines. The fact that Al Gore has graced the covers of several magazines in recent months attests to his continued popularity.
Favorable publicity surrounding Al Gore’s new global warming movie has contributed to the buzz that the former VP has his sights set on the White House in 2008. A former aide tells the WSJ that he’s been talking about it.
Wall Street Journal:
First there was Clinton-Gore. Could Clinton vs. Gore be next?
For former Vice President Al Gore, a rash of favorable publicity surrounding this month’s opening of his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the growing political resonance of its subject—global warming—are stoking the most serious speculation about a Gore political comeback since his loss in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.
In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats’ nomination between Bill Clinton’s former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton’s electability, that is part of the appeal.
“I appreciate that buzz, but he’s not running for president,” insists Michael Feldman, a former vice presidential adviser who is helping promote the film and Mr. Gore’s new book on which it is based. “He has been spending a considerable amount of time trying to educate people about the issue of global warming,” and won’t talk about politics “right now,” Mr. Feldman says.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
i have to laugh at the person who said that in 2000 he would have voted for nader because gore in 2000 stood for nothing, i cant count on 5 hands how many great things mr gore stands for and has always stood for, uninformed americans are the reason gore lost, in 2008 pay more attn. we have lost out on the best politician alive. mr. gore just may be too good to be am american president anyway, perhaps he is overqualified!!
I was 17 in 2000, but I would have voted for Nader. In 08, I would certainly vote for Gore. Why?
Because before, Gore didn’t stand for anything. Now he does.
By lincoln, May 8, 2006 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
No doubt there are many voters who now know they made the wrong choice in 2000, even among those still swallowing the neo-con koolaid 4 years later. At long last the Republican denial machine is self-destructing. Without hype or pretense Al Gore owns the global anthropogenic climate change issue. There are three more hurricane seasons between now and the so far still scheduled 2008 presidential election. All he has to do is keep his head down. All we have to do is make sure that there is actually an election.
By steve, May 9, 2006 at 3:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i have to laugh at the person who said that in 2000 he would have voted for nader because gore in 2000 stood for nothing, i cant count on 5 hands how many great things mr gore stands for and has always stood for, uninformed americans are the reason gore lost, in 2008 pay more attn. we have lost out on the best politician alive. mr. gore just may be too good to be am american president anyway, perhaps he is overqualified!!
Report thisBy Paul Murray, May 8, 2006 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What a tragedy for the world that this man was not elected in 2000.
Report thisBy drew, May 8, 2006 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I was 17 in 2000, but I would have voted for Nader. In 08, I would certainly vote for Gore. Why?
Report thisBecause before, Gore didn’t stand for anything. Now he does.
By lincoln, May 8, 2006 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
No doubt there are many voters who now know they made the wrong choice in 2000, even among those still swallowing the neo-con koolaid 4 years later. At long last the Republican denial machine is self-destructing. Without hype or pretense Al Gore owns the global anthropogenic climate change issue. There are three more hurricane seasons between now and the so far still scheduled 2008 presidential election. All he has to do is keep his head down. All we have to do is make sure that there is actually an election.
Report this