Still an opening for a nobel?

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 04:18:09 PM EDT

The UK Times is reporting a tip that Al Gore is going to win the Nobel Prize, awarded this coming Friday:

He was nominated for the Nobel prize jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who has campaigned about the effect of climate change on Arctic peoples.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel peace prize is making a difference and Al Gore has made a difference," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier.

"I think they are likely winners this year," said Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo's International Peace Research Institute. The winner will receive $1.5m (£750,000) in prize money.

Gore spent last year assessing whether he ought to run for the White House in 2008, teasing his supporters by saying, "I haven't completely ruled it out", and prompting observers to keep a close eye on his girth for signs that he was slimming for a presidential bid.

Some commentators in America, including the British writer Christopher Hitchens, believe he could use a Nobel win to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

"Can he stand to watch another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his?" Hitchens asked. Close supporters believe the answer is yes. Gore appears to have concluded that the Democrats are satisfied with their candidates.

I guess. I dunno, I think it could still happen, but it's a stretch. Clinton would need to stumble, but the groundwork may be layed for that to happen with her vote on Iran, which showed she is out of touch with the base still on the middle east.

You can read about Clinton questioning whether there's a conspiracy out in Iowa to gotcha over her vote on Iran:

At a campaign stop here, Hillary Clinton sparred verbally for several minutes with a man who pressed her on her recent vote to call Iran's army a terrorist organization.

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

"I apologize," Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked the very same question in three other places.

The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth by saying the two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff, who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested he had misunderstood.

This could wind up being a disaster for Clinton, if Bush does invade/bomb Iran, and suggests this vote as justification of getting congressional approval.

Tags: Al Gore (all tags)

Comments

25 Comments

Sort by

permalink

He'll get the Edwards Treatment

look what the corporate media did about al gore's big house and electric bills.

why would he want that.

he should pick one of the dems and help them beat Hillary.

that's how he can accomplish his agenda

by TarHeel 2007-10-07 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Gores bought an 80 yr old house, turned it green

That's the real story about their house.

Gore's own words:

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview of Al Gore

Aired July 5, 2007

KING: All right. We have an e-mail from Jerry in Houston, Texas. "Mr. Gore, how can you fly in your private jet, live in a massive mansion and set an example for others?"

GORE: Well, first of all, I fly commercial most of the time. There are a few occasions when that's not possible. I came here on a commercial airliner and we just finished putting 33 solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of our house. We're right now in the midst of installing a geothermal system for the heating and cooling and changing the remaining lights and windows and insulation that haven't already been done and we are walking the walk and we're going to have a green standard, the lead certification, for our house. Drive a hybrid and all the rest and look, I've never claimed to be perfect but I'm doing the best I can and one of the pledges at the Live Earth concerts, the second pledge is to reduce my own global warming pollution as much as I can and offset the rest in order to become carbon neutral.

And we're asking everybody in the world who attends these concerts or watches them to sign that and the other six points in that pledge and my family and I have long since become what's called carbon neutral. We are part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Here is a summary.

Gore's house and energy bills: A summary of facts:

Gore bought an 80yr old house and turned it green. That's the real truth behind his home. A 4-5K square foot home is a fairly common size home. Gores' 10K sqft home is not that large for a former Vice President especially considering that the Gores have two home offices there.

It also turns out that their per cubic foot energy use is about average for their region, which is hot and muggy in the summer and cold in the winter. In addition, they purchase green energy blocks to support renewable energy infrastructure in the TN valley area. Their entire Carbon footprint is carbon-offset on top of that.

They've solarized their roof, and were working on installing a geothermal climate system and other improvements. They had been waiting for their local zoning laws to permit the installation of solar panels well before the Oscars ceremony of 2007, just after which the unfair attacks against Al Gore have been launched.

Given that tearing an old house down to build a new one would likely contribute a large amount of CO2 and other pollution from the materials and construction, renovating their existing home and turning it green is a better approach, which is exactly what they are doing.

Readers, please help set the record straight whenever and where ever you see people attacking Gore re. their house.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-10-08 06:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Gore should run, form an early ticket with Obama

That's how the country will be in good hands in the coming years.

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-10-08 06:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Randall Rolph

This guy is a plant, probably an Obama plant. We did some google search. He's very active on some sort of 'progressive blog' in Iowa. He is definitely a Hillary hater. His direct link to either Obama or Edwards campaign is yet to be determined.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/pol itics/06iowa.html?hp

Oct 6th NYT

"The one thing about Iowa is that we always have the ability to bring a reality check to the country," said Randall Rolph, 56, who came with his son to see Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and plans to return Sunday when Mrs. Clinton arrives for a campaign stop.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 04:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Randall Rolph

[IMG]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007 /10/06/us/iowa190.jpg
[/IMG]

by areyouready 2007-10-07 04:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Some previous articles published by this plant
Randall Rolph.

http://state29.blogspot.com/2005/08/etha nol-is-harmful-to-ozone.html

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archive s/2005/3/16

Just do a simple google search. This guy is extremely active in local politics. There is no reason to believe he is simply a normal 'undecided voter'.

Haven't searched his donation history, and I wouldn't be surprised to find more stuff.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 04:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Randall Rolph

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy turned out to be a Hillary basher on dailykos who's been planning on this for a while.

Remember that notorious guy who heckled Clinton at YKOS and wrote some very dishonest recount on both myDD and dailykos.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 04:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

areyouready:

Why are you so obsessed with this guy? Maybe Randall Rolph is an informed voter and doesn't want to follow a candidate blindly. Maybe he works for Romney for all I care. The point is that his question remains valid - has Hillary not learned anything from her Iraq vote? has she not learned from her so-called 'experience'?

Try to be objective here, giving Bush any excuse to launch a new war is irresponsible and should be challenged no matter who the guilty party is. Remember how the war in Iraq got started, cloaked in the phony argument of WMDs, inspections, 9/11 link? Please don't use the GOP strategy of attacking someone for questioning a candidate, especially when that candidate appears to be leading us on a dangerous path. We are better than that.

If Hillary gets the nomination, all of us will support her 110%, but until then don't stand in the way of having an honest debate.

by alex540 2007-10-07 05:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

The reason is simple, you don't play with a 'plant', it is worthless. If that's some sort of dirty tricks played by other camps, you uncover them and expose them.

Hillary handled him very well. But I don't believe for a minute we should take any plant seriously.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 05:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Sounds almost like you have some expertise on this subject.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-07 07:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Are 5 posts on an alleged Obama "plant"

the sign of a Clinton plant on MyDD? (rolls eyes)

The guy asked a perfectly legitimate question whether or not he is affiliated with any campaign.

by PeakVT 2007-10-07 05:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Just because he's active on a "progressive blog" doesn't qualify him as a plant. He seems to be an informed citizen who asked a very pertinent question about a possible war against Iran, that Clinton may have voted to justify.

We need more of these questions, not less. And when HRC accuses questioners of being "plants" instead of engaging in thoughtful debate, it shows contempt for anyone with legitimate concern over another Mideast debacle.

She hasn't stumbled much so far, but this could be a big mistake.

by dmfox 2007-10-07 05:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Let's not kid ourselves. The plant at YKOS came back and wrote very dishonest recount of what happened there. That guy got creamed by many kossacks for his distortion.

This guy may well be the same type of plant, we don't know what his link to other camps.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 05:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

I agree that Paul Hogwarth turned out to be quite the discredit to what he was trying to achieve. This guy seems somewhat suspect, but he has a right to ask questions when he gets a turn at the microphone. I think it was actually handled pretty well. There does not need to be a link to a campaign to be an actual "hater," or, with lesser punch, "detractor." Which is what this guy probably was. No big deal. Certainly not the "big issue" some of our resident "detractors" and others here are intending to make this into.

by georgep 2007-10-07 06:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

I agree Clinton handled the situation well. She got the opportunity to clarify the intentional distortion of her vote by opposition camps. However, I strongly suspect this guy did so with some sort of encouragement from other camps. It's extremely odd the same guy got interviewed by NYT on Oct 6th. He made it clear at an Obama event he's determined to 'stop Hillary'.

"The one thing about Iowa is that we always have the ability to bring a reality check to the country," said Randall Rolph, 56, who came with his son to see Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and plans to return Sunday when Mrs. Clinton arrives for a campaign stop.

by areyouready 2007-10-07 06:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

On Hillary Kyl/Leiberman and the Webb Vote

I regularly browse the UPI 'Emerging Threats' feed which had an interesting article recently about the threat of Iran and quotations from Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Advisor. In the story was also some background on recent US legislative activities in respect of Iran:

The Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Senate resolution that declared Iran's Revolutionary Guards "an international terrorist organization" was widely interpreted as a response to the Israeli prime minister's plea last spring "not to tie the president's hands on Iran." It would presumably allow Bush to order strikes against Iran in defiance of legislation introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., last spring that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Arnaud De Borchgrave - UPI 5 Oct 07

Without addressing the mixed signal sent by her co-sponsorship of Webb's S759 recently, which is unlikely to become law, it seems clear that the sense of the Kyl/Kieberman legislation as enabling the options of the Bush administration on Iran is widely understood. While many of the actors who brought us the war in Iraq have resigned, the rumblings over Iran continue, largely emanating from the office of the Vice President, as theorised in this article from the Observer describing Gordon Brown's special security adviser's official comments on the subject.

I am not suggesting that Hillary's is playing false on Kyl/Lieberman but cannot reconcile it with her February speech, her remarks on the Webb Amendment co-sponsorship, or her comments made when she voted for it. I get it that she wants diplomacy but Kyl/Lieberman doesn't say anything about that, exactly (more on this later, I am considering a diary on the inconsistencies I am currently puzzling over in the Crocker quotes it contains in various versions of the text). I am confused, is it any wonder the electorate is as well?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-07 06:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Kyl/Leiberman and the Webb Vote

Given that the language of the Kyl/Leiberman amendment was changed to keep Bush's hands tied, and that the Webb amendment is still on the table, Arnaud's presumption is incorrect.

by souvarine 2007-10-07 06:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Kyl/Leiberman and the Webb Vote

You know, I tend to agree with you there on the literal content of the bill and have been spending the last two hours trying to find the definitive text of Section 1538 of HR1585. The edition on Thomas actually disagrees with the text at TPM's document archive and other published texts on exactly which sub-paragraphs which mention Crocker's remarks actually are included in the final draft. This is important as these were the late changes which were intended to soften the wording. If I find anything significant I may diarise it as we will be hearing more about this, I am sure.

The thing is that Arnaud De Borchgrave is no hack and wasn't even thinking about Hillary in this reference if you read the article. He is an insider's insider in international political journalism and UPI is hardly a left wing outlet, he writes for NewsMax too. But he certainly seemed clear enough on the Kyl/Lieberman bill. It isn't so much the actual wording of the text, which I am actually having trouble finding definitively, it is the perception of it, which my explain why she is experiencing some frustration. She needs to understand the context of the bill not just the letter of it. As I said I am trying to analyse the actual text in the meantime, but I doubt many people have actually read it in full.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-07 07:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

I wonder how many times Areyouready is going to post a picture of that guy... creepy as hell.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-07 06:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

I could see Gore jumping in. It would definitely shake up the race, that's for sure. He might honestly be the only one who can stop a Hillary coronation.

by Vox Populi 2007-10-07 06:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

This could wind up being a disaster for Clinton, if Bush does invade/bomb Iran, and suggests this vote as justification of getting congressional approval.

- be rest assured he won't attack iran before the primary is over.

by lori 2007-10-07 07:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

She's out of touch with the

Dem base on Iran? I thought the Webb amendment was extremely inline with the Dem base.

by bookgrl 2007-10-07 08:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Still an opening for a nobel?

Ummm... Steve Clemons argues that Bush doesn't intend to bomb Iran.

Link

I prefer to trust General Clark's interpretation and judgement on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I'm sure he advised Hillary on this vote.

He said Hillary is right with her Kyl-Lieberman vote.

General Clark's web site: StopIranWar.com

by Hurdy Gurdy 2007-10-07 08:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

I think she did give Bush justification

I think that by voting to call Iran's army a terrorist organization she did in fact vote for authorization for war with Iran. If you read the AUMF its not hard to construe that interpretation of the vote.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

As I read that, the vote calling Iran's army a terrorist organization provides a congressional (though false) link to Al Qaeda and 9-11 and can very easily be construed as an authorization for war with Iran.

by cwech 2007-10-08 10:44AM | 0 recs