the vibration starts slowly ...

it's not a campaign ... it builds ever so slowly with one small ripple triggering the next and then the next and then another and another ... only the very best scouts with their ears pressed into the earth can make out what is happening ... it builds quietly and most can neither hear it nor see its changes ... but still it builds until others start to notice its force ... each day, more and more are affected by it; each day more and more become aware ...

those who are unaware and those who think they can just go about their business and nothing will change do not understand the forces being unleashed. this force will crush them. this force will devour them. this force will show their passionless, technical campaigns for the farce they are.

my friends, if Al Gore runs, the power of the movement behind him will destroy anything that gets in its way. most do not yet understand that. or perhaps they do ...

in this quiet little post, I would say only this to his supporters: please make sure, amidst all the enthusiasm, that you remember to still ask all the hard questions. Gore shows tremendous promise but has yet to speak out on many important themes. Let's just make sure we have all the answers before we charge ahead full force. We need not demand perfection from any candidate but we do have a right to know.

i'm not sure what point you're making. i certainly agree that DU'ers, and a very, very broad progressive community well beyond the narrow boundaries of little DU, are eagerly seeking an alternative to the current crop of candidates.

but using the term "savior" implies something negative ... at least to me ...

is there something negative in wanting someone to run in whose message you believe? is there something wrong with seeing those already declared, specifically the "top tier", as doing nothing more than enforcing the status quo? if Al Gore is inspiring people, I see no reason to go negative about it and use a term like "savior". or have I misunderstood your intent?

I'm not using it in a positive or negative context--just a neutral "as I see it" context. I myself am not a Gore supporter, although I personally find the man likeable and politically substantial (as opposed to the giant hot-air, all-image balloon of F Thompson). I would support him as the nominee, and he may do very well in the general--or he may not. I have deep reservations about his chances, and I'm pretty much alone with that on DU. But I can't help but see similarities in the way folks here pine for him, and read so much into him, and pin so many hopes onto him, with the way Freepville does with Thompson. They are totally unrealistic about him, they excuse away his shortcomings, and they see in him what they WANT to see, not what's actually there (and nothing seems to be there). I am afraid folks are starting to do this on DU, and thus do not support the three VERY viable candidates we have--I think they have a pretty good chance of winning, actually. DU might be dissatisfied and want Gore, and maybe he'll heed the call and run, but I won't jump on the bandwagon until I see proof that this run will have better results than the last.

we agree on almost nothing but we do agree on "bandwagon jumping". tucked quietly away in my post was one of the very warnings you're writing about. fiery, passionate support for a candidate is great AFTER you've done your homework. I'm very impressed with much of what I've been hearing from Gore but I still need to hear much more.

i'm willing to accept the idea that we're seeing a renewed Al Gore 2.0 but that doesn't mean I don't still want more information. Gore seems like he's a changed man to me. I deeply hope that what we're seeing now is the real deal. I hope the bandwagoners are shown to be right on the money. We still need to do our homework no matter how excited we may be.

As for your "three VERY viable candidates", let's leave that for another thread. Suffice it to say that I do not believe any of them will bring about the changes we so desperately need. I won't argue the case here.

says.

I don't agree with a lot of his politics. I think his globalization efforts aren't good for this country. Perhaps he's changed... but he heavily endorsed NAFTA. That policy has been very bad for this country. Maybe he has re-evaluated his positions, but I am really wary with his efforts for a carbon tax. While tax reform should be a priority, I'm not so sure that a carbon tax would really help poor people. I think the rich will be able to afford their carbon, and the rest will continue downwards.

I would wish that he doesn't run, and stay where he is: promoting the environment like a champion.

Really?

I would disagree with you respectfully. I think if Al Gore announced tomorrow, he'd be at the top of every poll, and a number of candidates would be reassessing their runs immediately, but it's only my opinion.

What wT2 is saying, though, is very valid: If or when that does happen, he should go through a period of time where he explains his positions on ALL subjects, not just those environmental to re-introduce himself to us. He should also leave the overly-polite Al, the soft-spoken and sweet Al home. The guy who wrote "The Assault on Reason" should run, and come out with all barrels blasting, and never stop until after the election.

I could get behind that in a big way. He won't have to be "perfect", just strong as hell.

TC

We should be so lucky if he runs.