My favorite political blogger (and good friend), Gail Jonas’ blog can be found at THINKING OUT LOUD. Click the link, bookmark the page. You’ll be happy you did. Unlike Salon and the big poli-blogs, Gail’s voice is reasoned, passionate and individual…you won’t find her spewing the same old party lines.

Today, Gail posted on two of my favorite people, Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader. If you’re a Nader hater (I know you are and also know you don’t have a reasoned reason for being one.), do read on.

ZINN, NADER TEAM UP TO HOLD DEMOCRATS’ FEET TO THE FIRE by Gail Jonas

Full disclosure: Zinn and Nader are only teamed up in this post because I think joining together their ideas on how to get the frontrunning Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to address crucial issues makes sense.

On February 23rd, Howard Zinn’s article, “Election Madness” was posted at Information Clearing House. Zinn describes election madness that seizes the country every four years: I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth. But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice¦.

Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, Read the rest of this entry »

Just when you thought that democracy was absolutely DEAD in the United States (Clinton and Obama paying off superdelegates with millions of dollars in cash money = bye bye democracy, hello pay to play!), Ralph Nader comes along to remind people that ANYONE can actually run for President. Even someone with lofty ideals and concern for the wellbeing of the global citizenry.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the consumer advocate said great changes in U.S. history have come “through little parties that never won any national election.”

“Dissent is the mother of ascent,” he said. “And in that context I’ve decided to run for president.”

Of course, if you haven’t heard of Eugene Debs or how his candidacies brought us social security, child labor laws, some small level of corporate oversight, minimum wage and much more, you’re not that tapped into the history of U.S. politics and Nader’s words fall on deaf ears (fancy that, a U.S. citizenry that isn’t well-versed in U.S. history or the actions of their own parties!)
On how his candidacy impacts the Democrats: “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”

Of course, we all know the Dems are really, really good at handing elections to the Republicans (Remember that sad sap, Al Gore, who handed Bush victory? Why aren’t more people upset at him for the last 8 years?) so nobody should be surprised if Hillary somehow steals the nomination from Obama, then gets her ass handed to her by McCain.

[tags]obama, clinton, nader, president, election[/tags]

Last night, I hopped in the gas-guzzler and made my way down to San Francisco, where Earth Policy Institute founder, Lester Brown, gave a riveting talk at the World Affairs Council. The talk was part of his book tour for the recently released “most important book on the planet,” Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. If you care about the future and you haven’t read the book, you need to correct that mistake pronto. I cannot possibly urge you more strongly. Please. Read it for yourself and for those whom you care about.

I can’t say it LOUD ENOUGH!

READ THIS BOOK.
I won’t summarize a one-hour talk that summarized a book you will be reading shortly. In fact, you can read it for FREE, online, RIGHT HERE. What matters most is that we’ve twelve years (until 2020), to reduce our carbon footprint by 80%, or we’re absolutely cooked. Will the will to achieve this achievable goal manifest? I’m not betting on it, not when I look around and within. Around me I see the majority of people, even the “Treehuggers” who aren’t ready to really commit to the changes required. Aren’t ready to do more than buy a Prius and some carbon offset passes. Within me I see a person who can rail at the lack of will in others yet who does so out of frustration that he isn’t likely to make those changes either. Oh, I’ll try, but 80% in little more than a decade? It’s going to take more than incremental baby steps.

Some of you know that I refuse to come out for any of the current presidential hopefuls. I don’t see any of them as qualified, untainted, or possessing the fortitude to do what is right for not only our country, but the world. That said, hearing one of my true heroes come out in support of Obama, gave me pause. Brown sees Obama’s message as more forceful than a handful of proffered solutions to the topical (my word, not Les’) problems that fascinate us (war, economy, health). He finds Barack to be a leader whose VISION will offer new solutions to many problems, including environmental. He sees Obama as the only candidate that will bring about the environment in which bold solutions will be not only dreamed up but executed. What’s more, Brown finds hope in the millions of youth who are whole-heartedly adopting Obama’s “Yes, we can!” message.

I don’t know that I flat out disagree with Les, but I’m not as hopeful. I saw millions of youth getting behind Clinton. I was one of them. We helped put him in office. And once he was there, we all sat back down. We held his feet to the flames not one time. And he got away with murder during the next eight years, putting into action not one of his liberal promises. Instead, he allied himself with big oil, with Monsanto, with the Bush family…he betrayed us in the worst way and oversaw/endoresed environmental transgressions of the worst kind. No, Obama isn’t Clinton. But I’ll tell you what, I’m gun shy as hell about the Democrats and their ‘promises’.

If Obama will press charges against Bush/Cheney, bring Edwards aboard as V.P., AND provide solid details about the people he will put into cabinet positions, he will earn my note. Otherwise, it will be my first (and likely not last) None of the Above vote. Sorry, Les. I want to agree with you, but I can’t. Yet.

A happy day, indeed, when I found that one of my favorite bloggers has not disappeared, but instead has simply relocated. Judith Lewis, writer for the LA Weekly and LA times, has moved her riveting blog to Little Green Animals. Bookmark it, yo. Reading her latest post this morning on Obama and Clinton, I got a bit fired up and left a long-winded comment:

There’s a significant part of me, the one that was raised by Democrat parents, the one that doesn’t want to really THINK about the election, that wants to knee-jerk hand my election to Anyone But Bush’s Party, that wants to clap my hands over my ears and eyes and propel me via a tra-la-la-ing skip-step to Political Fantasy Land. From where I sit (high above it all in a well-stocked and fortified tree house), I can see millions of my fellow liberals happily cavorting about inside Fantasy Land, all blindfolded, all perfectly fitted with information-cancelling iPods. It looks like a fun place, a place where I would no doubt bump into many of the pleasantly pacified. Yet, the contrarian in me, that evil bastard who insists that I pay attention, that I waste my time noting the disconnects between promises, intention and past actions, steers me clear. Outside the gates, I find a wasteland populated by fact-finders, do-gooders, humanitarians, environmentalists, Constitutionalists, and the like. The disenfranchised, basically. And the real bitch of it is, that the Presidential candidates, including Obama and Clinton, don’t dare step outside the theme park. Our numbers and our issues play no part in their crusades. Their captive audience makes no real demands, nor does it provide defined expectations. “CHANGE!” they shout in unison, as Fantasy Land employees hoist cue cards into the air. “ETHICAL STEWARDSHIP OF OUR RESOURCES! RESTORE THE TRICAMERAL BALANCE OF POWERS! CURB THY EXPANSIONISITIC DESIRES! END ELECTORAL FRAUD!” we scream, clambering upon each other’s shoulders in the vain hope that one loud tongue will find itself elevated above the wall. Alas, it’s a one-syllable system. Work. Shop. Fight. Change. In such a setting, one would think ‘Peace’ would have a chance. But peace is tantamount to rest and if we dare take a break from this grand effort of eating our own tail (lower the blindfold for a moment–that isn’t beef you’re eating, it’s your children), the collective gag reflex would shatter the iPods and disrobe our eyes. In the resultant wash of blinding sunlight the voices outside the wall would be heard and perhaps there would be a grand awakening and uniting of forces. At last The Revolution! as millions jump turnstiles and swap fantasy for reality. More likely, however, the freed Democrat masses, used to being taken for granted by their masters and frightened by the new need to muster probing thoughts, would hastily refasten the blinders and jab credit cards skywards toward Jobs the Beneficent Provider.

This isn’t to say that I look upon Democrats with utter disdain. No, I look upon the majority of them as kind-hearted and simple Not a bellwether in the bunch, they’re led about by wolves in sheeps clothing. The humanity in them is still there, but it’s very, very difficult to get them to see it. The moment they look upon their true reflection in the water trough, their knees buckle and they huddle ever closer together, squeezing out those bipeds who persist in wandering among them, attempting to teach them the trick of standing on their hind legs and acting like humans.

That sound I hear above the din of bleating animals? It’s the endless buzz of knife upon grindstone.

Wow. Could it be that a person of integrity AND ideas will finally enter the race? Check this out (CLICK ME). If he does, I’ll be hard-pressed not to volunteer for his campaign for a few reasons.

[1] Edwards has dropped out. He was the only candidate with a mature environmental agenda. In fact, I was one of the first to endorse him.
[2] Nader is the candidate whose political views most closely mirror mine. That’s why you vote for someone, right?

[3] He isn’t a Democrat or a Republican - the twined bastard parties who have eviscerated the globe.

[4] It will piss off most of my friends and family, who, in their continued denial, blame Nader rather than themselves for Bush’s ascendancy in 2000. If you still believe the myth that Nader cost Gore the election, please, don’t pester me with your shrill howls. You’re simply in denial. Yet, I love you anyway.

[5] Getting involved in a Presidential campaign is, to me, a civic duty. You shouldn’t criticize those whose involvement extends beyond simply showing up at the ballot box, even if they’re voting for the opposition. At least they give enough of a damn to give their time and energy. It’s easy to bitch and moan, not so easy to roll up the shirt sleeves.

[6] Because I voted for him in 2000 and 2004.

[7] He named my son, Justice.

Here’s a typical anti-Nader article (CLICK ME). One of the comments to this article sums up why Nader matters more succinctly than I am able:

“Nader only matters if clean air, water, food, the Freedom of Information Act, auto safety, getting out of Iraq and ending corporate welfare matters.”

Indeed, not a one of the current crop of candidates is prepared to act AT ALL on any of the above. That doesn’t bother you? You’re happy to hand your vote over, be taken for granted by your party, for the chance to continue on with business as usual? Believe, I’d LOVE to believe that Obama stands for “change”. You and I, however, both know better. Remember Bill Clinton? His wars? His partnerships with big oil and the rest of the corporate world? What about his horrific environmental record? Or the fact that access to abortions was curtailed more sharply under Clinton/Gore than under any other administration? Or that the gap between richest and poorest in the U.S. grew at a record rate? Indeed, before you throw your vote to a Party, do some research. See if your views really do match those of your Party. Have you EVER done that? Have you really? If so, feel free to counter me via my comment box. If not, hit the library, amigos.

One of my political heroes (throw your tomato now), Ralph Nader, has endorsed John Edwards for President, some weeks after yours truly did the same. Great minds think alike, you see. Still doesn’t mean I’d vote for Edwards as I’ve sworn off Demos (yes, and Repubs) after what they did and didn’t do during the Clinton/Gore years…and let’s not even talk about how pathetic the current Dem ‘leadership’ has been during the past year.

Nonetheless, in case you missed it:

HEALDSBURG, CA — Eco-advisor Tod Brilliant gave his endorsement to North Carolina Senator John Edwards in his run to be the Democratic presidential nominee in next year’s elections.The internationally-recognized Brilliant said Edwards is the only candidate who has offered real plans to combat the effects of climate change and make ready not only the U.S. citizenry, but peoples of all nations, for a world that will change rapidly in the coming decades due to resource deterioration.

“John Edwards has the courage to tackle problems that other politicians simply ignore, like reducing our national carbon footprint by 80% in the near future.” Brilliant parroted. “Obama is in love with coal, while Clinton simply ignores the issue, focused as she is on becoming the nation’s next warmonger.”

Edwards has proposed capping greenhouse gases beginning in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system. While Brilliant personally derides the cap-and-trade system as “smoke and mirrors” he is confident that Edwards is merely trying to appease big industry until he takes office. Edwards also has pledged to work for a new climate treaty that includes developing countries, and opposes subsidies for new nuclear power plants in the United States.

“There are times when the right message appears at the right time. I can only urge people around the world to read Lester Brown’s “Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet in Stress & a Civilization in Trouble”. Nothing summarizes our current predicament more concisely, nor offers a more cogent plan of attack,” intoned the Count of Montezuma. Edwards said he was honored to have the support of Brilliant, who he considers to be one of the few voices in the sustainability movement who is truly nonpartisan.

“We must work together to halt global warming and protect our natural resources to ensure our children inherit a healthy planet. Brilliant understands that partisanship on this most vital issue only dooms us to rapid failure,” Edwards might have said had he any notion of Brilliant’s existence.

This marks the second recent endorsement for Edwards from a leading ‘green’ advocate. Friends of the Earth gave their support to Edwards on October 14, noting that no other viable candidate proposes a solid environmental action plan.

(I posted this originally back in March. I’m posting it again because neither Obama nor Clinton are worthy of your vote, if you consider climate change a critical issue. Edwards may be viable, but I don’t see him doing much to get the nomination from the Dems . . . mostly because the Dems are increasingly out of touch)

Yes, I know it is crazy to think of Al Gore as a third party candidate. Yet, just for fun, why not suspend your initial dismissal of this idea for a moment and walk through this thought-exercise with me? I’m betting the Republicans of 1912 would have dismissed the notion of a third party Theodore Roosevelt, but look what happened when they took Teddy’s supporters for granted - it cost them the White House.

I’ve polled sixteen friends and acquaintances with the question, “If Al Gore were to run as a third party candidate, would you still vote for him?” Of these sixteen, eleven said YES. The others were on the fence. Not one responded with an outright NO. My friend David responded, “I love the idea of him running so that he would get his ideas out there and so that the platform for his ideas would be made even greater. To have his notions raised and covered by the greater media channels is what we need.”

Take a look at the current situation: ‘Democrat’ Joe Lieberman is threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by switching parties if any legit anti-Iraq war resolution is passed. Party front-runners Clinton and Obama are both on record saying that they refuse to take the threat of NUCLEAR attack on Iran off the table. Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been unable to muster much of her promised ‘revolution.’ The Democrats, in a few short months, are coming apart at the seams. Has there been a better time for a liberal third party? Has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more critical experience than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.?

Briefly then, as I’m really only out to foster debate and get this idea rolling, are some reasons that Gore would do well by running as an outsider:

1. Again, has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more experience?
Flash back to 1992. Ross Perot leads the vote over Clinton and Bush with only a few months to go. The victory was his to give away and he did, by dropping out of the race. Why did Perot get so close to taking The Prize? Because he was the man the public believed had the most experience with the most pressing topic - the economy. Gore, too, has a grasp on the issue of the time - the environment. It’s a cakewalk for the right team (something Gore has never had) to tie environmental considerations into any arena - from resource scarcity (war) to agriculture (food) to economic stability (energy), and so on - making the environment the true focal point of the 2008 election.
2. A Gore run would give automatic credibility to third parties.
This would be very, very good for U.S. politics for so many, many reasons. As with Perot, the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates would be forced to allow Gore into the televised debates, meaning the debates may turn into something worth watching for a change (as they would have been in ‘00 and ‘04 had Nader been invited). Hearing more than two voices on a topic is critical to developing an exchange that represents the full spectrum of the thoughts and ideals of the U.S. citizenry.

3. There is no strong candidate currently running.
Sure, Clinton may be the first electable woman to run and Obama the first electable (how I despise this term as it neuters the spirit of the left) citizen of African origins (the newest PC term), but a minority status has zero to do with whether or not one is fit for the Presidency. McCain, well, he’s a faux-maverick, back-peddling, pro-war candidate. Edwards is a bright spot, but Clinton and the Carlyle Group have squashed his chances. In a Clinton-McCain election, voters would be given (key word) the delightful choice between Warmonger A and Warmonger B. Throw Al Gore into the mix and these two will eat each other alive, leaving Gore a clear path to victory. Advantage, Gore, by a whopping margin.

4. Environmentalism finally gets a real platform. To date, neither major party has announced ANY plans for a truly ambitious program to combat climate change. Pelosi and company have done better than the Republicans, but they’ve still yet to put forth anything that moves anywhere near the accelerated timetable required (for more information, read ‘Plan B 2.0′ by Lester Brown). The Green Party in the U.S. is still far from the militant, hyper-organized machine that it needs to become to be taken seriously. It has some great people at the top, but it’s local chapters are rag-tag and riddled with tired ex-hippies who are more concerned with repeating the tired chants of the 1960s than embracing real change. No, Al Gore could single-handedly create a Party that is strengthened by its commitment to the ethical stewardship of the planet.

5. Gore needs separation from the Democrats. (I know, he’s not enough of his own man to leave his father’s party behind, but . . .) For so many reasons. For starters, he has been working feverishly to craft bipartisan support of his mission. Signing on to the home team will only ruin the advances he has made. If he is brave enough to show the citizenry and the world that he actually walks the walk, then his tarnished history will be burnished like never before. Remember, he more or less sat on his hands for eight years as a dem V.P., apparently waiting for ‘his turn’. This time he can put his passions ahead of career advancement, spurning the safe road of partisan politics while distancing himself from the cigar-sucking conservative Clinton administration that usurped his soul.

6. He could avoid partisan politics. Related to #5. Gore has spent so much time coming off as nonpartisan that it would be a real shame to see him throw this away by running as a Democrat. Aligning himself with a party that has a poor track record where his expertise is concerned is a questionable tactic. As an independent, Gore would be able to play the role of a true bipartisan peacemaker, a real man-in-the-middle. This would also free him from toeing a party line on numerous divisive issues. Now more than ever, the American citizens are starving for a President who will make decisions based on the good of the people, not the party.

7. This would allow him more time to weigh his options. As a third party candidate, Gore can afford to let his rivals smash each other publicly, exposing one another’s weak points in the process. He would also be able to see what develops in domestic and international politics. For example, if we nuke Iran, environmental considerations are off the table for the rest of the decade, if not longer as the world as we know it devolves into infinite chaos. In which case, Gore’s candidacy bid suffers immensely. It’s strange to me that, with two years+ to go, some are already saying that it’s “late” to get into the campaign. Pffft. That’s nonsense. Give me a candidate, a bunch of money (Warren? Bill?) and six months and I can promise you that s/he will be elected.

8. He has the organization and grass roots campaign in place. With Gore’s network of organizations, friends and supporters, he could get on ballots in 50 states in three days flat, without a doubt. What’s more, he can tap into people he needs with very little effort. I’m betting that the past few years have taught him that relying on D.C. advisers is a bad idea and this time around, he’d be more than willing to work with image makers and publicists who are actually a part of his constituency. Given this, he’d have another big advantage over Clinton/Obama/McCain/Giuliani who will all turn to the same out-of-touch strategists who so badly play each and every hand.That’s all for now. There are a number of other reasons but I’m going to table them until I hear back from you, dearest friends and readers on just the inanity/genius of mulling this option. What do you think?

Oh, the daily song! Almost forgot: I hereby decree ‘Revolution’ by The Cult as Al Gore’s official theme song. [audio:cult.mp3]

Photography credit goes to the hyper-talented James Rexroad, whose permission I did not seek but whose forgiveness I very much do. Click the link and hire James for something, already - if only to help assuage my guilt.

[tags]gore, clinton, obama, climate change[/tags]

Bill Maher puts it pretty straight: The Democrats are a bunch of pussies and they will NEVER fix the environment. (don’t get upset that I said ‘pussies’, okay mom? I didn’t say ‘cunts’ and you know how I like to use the c-word because polls show that most people HATE that word. If I said ‘cunt’ on this website, I’d lose all the pussy p.c. Democrats who read my blog and I wouldn’t risk that, mom!)

Salon pretty much sucks, but THIS MAHER PIECE (link) is dead on. On Jimmy Carter: “If a Democrat who’s out of office and 100 years old can’t speak out, what chance do we have for the ones who are in office?”

Now where did I put that ‘Nader 2008′ t-shirt? (Zoinks! Now I’ve said “cunt” and “Nader” in the same post! Now those pussy Democrats are going to start planning to talk about hiring people to shoot spitballs at me!!!

[tags]bill-maher, climate-change, democrats-are-a-bunch-of-pussies[/tags]

Turns out Al Gore is mulling an offer by Ralph Nader to run as the Green Party’s Presidential candidate in 2008. As my loyal readers know, I was the first to put forth this notion into the ecosphere with THIS POST which was widely circulated on the web. My first real scoop!

From the article,

“Sources close to Gore said Ralph Nader has sought to recruit the former vice president to run as the candidate for the Green Party. They said Gore has not rejected the offer and was consulting with family and friends to determine the feasibility of such a candidacy. . . Gore, largely estranged from former President Bill Clinton since 2000, is said to have concluded that he stands no chance of beating Hillary for the Democratic presidential nomination. But sources close to Gore said the former vice president believes that he could present himself as a genuine liberal in any general election that would include Clinton.”

Look, the time has never been better for a WINNING third party run. If Gore doesn’t do it, that insiduous Unity ‘08 ticket is going to cost the Democrats the White House. In two years, every liberal in the world will be thanking Gore for doing the right thing. Just because the masses can’t see the logic now (and polls will likely show this), is no reason to not do what must be done. As it stands, the Dems and Reps are offering only pro-war, environmentally-ignorant candidates. We cannot afford to allow either party to win.

RUN GORE RUN!!! (And, yes, I will serve as an advisor to your campaign.)

[tags]al-gore, ralph-nader, green-party, tod-brilliant, climate-change, global-warming[/tags]

Yes, I know it is crazy to think of Al Gore as a third party candidate. Yet, just for fun, why not suspend your initial dismissal of this idea for a moment and walk through this thought-exercise with me? I’m betting the Republicans of 1912 would have dismissed the notion of a third party Theodore Roosevelt, but look what happened when they took Teddy’s supporters for granted - it cost them the White House.

I’ve polled sixteen friends and acquaintances with the question, “If Al Gore were to run as a third party candidate, would you still vote for him?” Of these sixteen, eleven said YES. The others were on the fence. Not one responded with an outright NO. My friend David responded, “I love the idea of him running so that he would get his ideas out there and so that the platform for his ideas would be made even greater. To have his notions raised and covered by the greater media channels is what we need.”

Take a look at the current situation: ‘Democrat’ Joe Lieberman is threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by switching parties if any legit anti-Iraq war resolution is passed. Party front-runners Clinton and Obama are both on record saying that they refuse to take the threat of NUCLEAR attack on Iran off the table. Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been unable to muster much of her promised ‘revolution.’ The Democrats, in a few short months, are coming apart at the seams. Has there been a better time for a liberal third party? Has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more critical experience than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.?

Briefly then, as I’m really only out to foster debate and get this idea rolling, are some reasons that Gore would do well by running as an outsider:

1. Again, has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more experience?
Flash back to 1992. Ross Perot leads the vote over Clinton and Bush with only a few months to go. The victory was his to give away and he did, by dropping out of the race. Why did Perot get so close to taking The Prize? Because he was the man the public believed had the most experience with the most pressing topic - the economy. Gore, too, has a grasp on the issue of the time - the environment. It’s a cakewalk for the right team (something Gore has never had) to tie environmental considerations into any arena - from resource scarcity (war) to agriculture (food) to economic stability (energy), and so on - making the environment the true focal point of the 2008 election.
2. A Gore run would give automatic credibility to third parties.
This would be very, very good for U.S. politics for so many, many reasons. As with Perot, the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates would be forced to allow Gore into the televised debates, meaning the debates may turn into something worth watching for a change (as they would have been in ‘00 and ‘04 had Nader been invited). Hearing more than two voices on a topic is critical to developing an exchange that represents the full spectrum of the thoughts and ideals of the U.S. citizenry.

3. There is no strong candidate currently running.
Sure, Clinton may be the first electable woman to run and Obama the first electable (how I despise this term as it neuters the spirit of the left) citizen of African origins (the newest PC term), but a minority status has zero to do with whether or not one is fit for the Presidency. McCain, well, he’s a faux-maverick, back-peddling, pro-war candidate. Edwards is a bright spot, but Clinton and the Carlyle Group have squashed his chances. In a Clinton-McCain election, voters would be given (key word) the delightful choice between Warmonger A and Warmonger B. Throw Al Gore into the mix and these two will eat each other alive, leaving Gore a clear path to victory. Advantage, Gore, by a whopping margin.

4. Environmentalism finally gets a real platform. To date, neither major party has announced ANY plans for a truly ambitious program to combat climate change. Pelosi and company have done better than the Republicans, but they’ve still yet to put forth anything that moves anywhere near the accelerated timetable required (for more information, read ‘Plan B 2.0′ by Lester Brown). The Green Party in the U.S. is still far from the militant, hyper-organized machine that it needs to become to be taken seriously. It has some great people at the top, but it’s local chapters are rag-tag and riddled with tired ex-hippies who are more concerned with repeating the tired chants of the 1960s than embracing real change. No, Al Gore could single-handedly create a Party that is strengthened by its commitment to the ethical stewardship of the planet.

5. Gore needs separation from the Democrats. (I know, he’s not enough of his own man to leave his father’s party behind, but . . .) For so many reasons. For starters, he has been working feverishly to craft bipartisan support of his mission. Signing on to the home team will only ruin the advances he has made. If he is brave enough to show the citizenry and the world that he actually walks the walk, then his tarnished history will be burnished like never before. Remember, he more or less sat on his hands for eight years as a dem V.P., apparently waiting for ‘his turn’. This time he can put his passions ahead of career advancement, spurning the safe road of partisan politics while distancing himself from the cigar-sucking conservative Clinton administration that usurped his soul.

6. He could avoid partisan politics. Related to #5. Gore has spent so much time coming off as nonpartisan that it would be a real shame to see him throw this away by running as a Democrat. Aligning himself with a party that has a poor track record where his expertise is concerned is a questionable tactic. As an independent, Gore would be able to play the role of a true bipartisan peacemaker, a real man-in-the-middle. This would also free him from toeing a party line on numerous divisive issues. Now more than ever, the American citizens are starving for a President who will make decisions based on the good of the people, not the party.

7. This would allow him more time to weigh his options. As a third party candidate, Gore can afford to let his rivals smash each other publicly, exposing one another’s weak points in the process. He would also be able to see what develops in domestic and international politics. For example, if we nuke Iran, environmental considerations are off the table for the rest of the decade, if not longer as the world as we know it devolves into infinite chaos. In which case, Gore’s candidacy bid suffers immensely. It’s strange to me that, with two years+ to go, some are already saying that it’s “late” to get into the campaign. Pffft. That’s nonsense. Give me a candidate, a bunch of money (Warren? Bill?) and six months and I can promise you that s/he will be elected.

8. He has the organization and grass roots campaign in place. With Gore’s network of organizations, friends and supporters, he could get on ballots in 50 states in three days flat, without a doubt. What’s more, he can tap into people he needs with very little effort. I’m betting that the past few years have taught him that relying on D.C. advisers is a bad idea and this time around, he’d be more than willing to work with image makers and publicists who are actually a part of his constituency. Given this, he’d have another big advantage over Clinton/Obama/McCain/Giuliani who will all turn to the same out-of-touch strategists who so badly play each and every hand.That’s all for now. There are a number of other reasons but I’m going to table them until I hear back from you, dearest friends and readers on just the inanity/genius of mulling this option. What do you think?

Oh, the daily song! Almost forgot: I hereby decree ‘Revolution’ by The Cult as Al Gore’s official theme song. [audio:cult.mp3]

Photography credit goes to the hyper-talented James Rexroad, whose permission I did not seek but whose forgiveness I very much do. Click the link and hire James for something, already - if only to help assuage my guilt.