Last night Fox had to say something nice about Al Gore. Why? Because the Emmys were on Fox and he won for his work to merge internet and TV called Current TV. Gore was also nominated for and won the Spanish Nobel Prize, sometimes viewed as the precursor to the Nobel Prize. Another busy week for someone who is not campaigning for President.

Oh yes. He has stated many times (in response to thousands of questions) that he has no current intention to run. He has also said the candidates are not emphasizing the importance of a real campaign to adapt/adjust/slow down the effects of global warming, and he may have to 'reconsider'. Al Gore has certainly done more than anyone else to throw a spotlight on the scientific facts. It's important to stick to the science and the facts when passing judgment and setting policy. Yes, there's some heavy lifting required in that link but that's why it's important to follow the science. Will Al Gore run? I don't know but using his own reasoning, he should. The President of the United States can make a huge difference in addressing the future. That's what's at stake.

What else happened at the Emmy's. Nothing except censorship. Apparently Sally Field said something like (paraphrase)

"If mothers ran the world, there'd be no damn wars!"

It underscores a real and present danger. Media in this country routinely censors itself in any number of ways. Withholding stories (including the supposed liberal NY Times and WaPo) misquoting sources, using anonymous sources to support administration positions and more. It's why more and more people turn to blogs to find information.

There will be no links or photos in this post. This is just a bunch of predictions and thoughts. We'll see how they come out:

- We're in Iraq for 2-5 more years. Even if we started withdrawing tomorrow it would take at least a year to get out. Still that's better than General Petraeus's ten years or the neo-cons century. What President Bush started he certainly will not finish.

- A third party candidate will enter the race (probably next year). I think Chuck Hagel will be a part of it and Michael Bloomsberg will either run or bankroll it. Altho the country is pretty receptive to change, it will not go third party in this time.

- I'm still amazed by the lack of focus on how corrupt and inefficient this administration is. With the combined wars we have over $750 Billion in defense with little results and we're seriously in huge debt. Yet, our obsession with entertainment and sports goes on and on.

- Every time I hear another in the endless talking points on why we can't leave Iraq and then I hear a report of more American or Iraqi deaths, my heart sinks. This war has gone on for more than we were in WW2 and for far less noble a cause.

- I wish any of the leading current Republicans running would tell the truth. Something like: 'The American people are right. This war is a quagmire, there's no solution and the longer we stay the worse it gets. i can't say that because the current President is from my party.'

- At the current rate, Democrats will have a veto proof majority in Congress and no matter who is president, the war will draw to a close faster rather than sooner.

This editorial in the Washington Post reminded me that when the Supreme Court begins their session (on the first Monday in October) they will be deciding whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban is in violation of the 2nd amendment. In the meantime, national Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have run away from gun control as fast as they could even while they lose long held Democratic states like West Virginia.

This could be very, very bad for Hillary Clinton, or she might squeak by. The squeaking scenario entails that both of her husband's appointees to the court rule against the District. That's not a likely scenario. Far more likely is that both of the very liberal appointees, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, rule with the gun control lobby either with the majority or in a minority.

The Washington Post today details another case of a major Hillary Clinton donor with severe legal problems:

...Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director...

...Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid...

What vetting process?

Want to know the future? Take the pulse of a business leader who gathers more information on marketing than any of us. His advice? Own a word. One word that has value and meaning and that leads to world wide recognition. What's one of the top three? Al Gore. In fact, it's one of the top words world wide. Gee, I wonder which country could use some respect around the world. I saw a bumper sticker the other day: "Al Gore 2000. Sounds pretty good now doesn't it?" I could think of a few things we would and wouldn't be doing.

How has Gore distinguished himself in the past six years? Why does his name have value and the Bush name much less so. By the way, if you think the Bush name has value you're probably a good person who listens to Rush, Faux News, Bill O'Lielly and read lil green footballs. You're also seriously deluded. Please remember, blogs are about facts and opinions. You're entitled, we all are. Back to Gore.

There are three things that stand out. His environmental work has been stellar. The movie is not my favorite but it is quite factual and has raised awareness for many. After a period of relative isolation and distance following the 2000 election he was an early opponent of the war and a passionate defender of the Constitution. He could win the Democratic nomination even if he enters 'late' (is October 2007 late??) and would likely win the general. So why isn't he running? You'll have to ask Al. What do you think? Should he? Will he? He's got the brand, does he have the will?

Fred Thompson is the great white hope for the Republicans. If you look at him in just the right light he might remind someone (not me) of Ronald Reagan. However, his fundraising is half of what his supporters were hoping for and he's been through three campaign staffs before not announcing yet again. The more one gets to know Thompson, the less there is to like. Have you heard him give a speech or speak off the cuff? Not good.

Michael Bloomberg. He said he would launch a third party candidacy only if he's pretty sure he can win. Anyone could say that, what's the risk in that? A national run requires 'infrastructure' like 2-300 staffers and the ability to collect signatures and get on the ballot. No movement in that area means Chuck Hagel is likely out as well. Looks like he will announce he's out of D.C. and will not run for re-election to the Senate. Giving up a sure thing means he's either reading a run for prez as an independent or he's just had it. I'll vote for the latter. His replacement? Bob Kerrey has all but announced so that's a likely pick-up for the Dems.

That leaves us Al Gore who, if he is teasing, is doing a masterful job. It's either the best 'non-campaign' ever or he really doesn't want to run. Unless. Unless he sees the current Democratic front-runners as not able to win. Certainly all three have handicaps. If I were on the other side I could run effective (negative) campaigns against the current leading Dems and I think Gore knows that. He may not want in but he knows full well that with a Republican in the White House, the stalemate and partisanship, not to mention the endless war will be the order of the day. Climate change won't be on the agenda. Bottom line, I won't be shocked if Gore gets in this fall and I'll put $10 on the table to back it up.

The role of the media in campaigns is hard to overstate. Most of the money raised by national candidates goes into buying TV ads so the candidate can 'speak directly to the people.' TV news, newspapers, columnists, are all courted by the campaigns. Positive media is 'free' media. The 'pamphleteer' or today''s equivalent, the 'blogger,' has always been with us but the instant moment of the internet makes an important difference. How many of us, by the time the evening news comes on, has heard most of it already?

Traditional media (TV news, newspapers and radio) have become somewhat predictable and news journalists tend to be jaded. They are used to campaign staffs trying to put out the most positive spin and have to try and find interesting angles to talk about. That, coupled with reduced emphasis on hard news and investigative news at news outlets has handicapped traditional media. The press tends to feed off each others' stories, and the more sensational the better. Thus, the spun stories get picked up: the haircuts, the candidates' kids, the cost of a candidate's house and so forth. On top of that you have special interests of all stripes who look to plant questions at forums, town halls and debates.

It all amounts to manufactured media. Media manufactured like housing which does not inform or provide quality information on issues of importance. We've already had a campaign for a year and how many people can express their favorite candidate's stand on issues? (Hint: Some of the candidates don't know). Before we drown in cynicism what are some potential solutions? Follow me on the flip for a few suggestions.

Last week, I caught a re-run of Oprah featuring former Vice President Al Gore. The man behind "An Inconvenient Truth" discussed the documentary, and global warming in general.

"Never in our past have we had anything like this," Gore said. "This is new. There are some large polluters who have tried to confuse the issue."

Oprah showed scenes from the movie, noting that it was the third highest-grossing documentary of all time, and let Gore explain the issue of global warming.

"The atmosphere around the earth is very thin," Gore said. "Very, very thin. Just a few miles up to the top of the sky ... We are putting global warming pollution, CO2 mainly, into the earth's atmosphere. It makes the atmosphere thicken."

Despite the disturbing predictions and images – melting ice at the North and South Poles, potentially-flooded urban areas – Gore included encouragement in his message.

"I think fear is paralyzing," he said. "You have to fight through that ... We have to face down the fear and see it as a huge opportunity today."

Would Gore 2008 supporters say the same thing to the former (and, perhaps, future) presidential candidate?

So the other day I was in the kitchen when I heard Al Gore's voice on our living-room TV. Curious, I went in to watch. Turns out it was a rerun of a 2006 "12 Days of Giveaways" episode of the Ellen DeGeneres show. Her guests: Kellie Pickler and a certain former vice president.

Were there any revealing signs from that interview that can be applied today? Gore sounded very definite about not running. "I don't think I'll ever do that again," he told Ellen. "I've kind of fallen out of love with politics."

As for Bill and Hillary Clinton, the power duo of the Democratic Party, Al Gore praised his former boss and didn't really address the then-prospect of a Hillary candidacy. "Do you think Hillary will run?" Ellen asked. "Uh, I don't know," Gore said. "I don't know." Ellen quickly made the mood more lighthearted, asking, "What about Tipper? I love her. I played Ping-Pong somewhere with your wife" and the Gores' daughter, Kristin.

Was there any bit of hope for anyone who wants Gore to run in 2008? The brains behind An Inconvenient Truth (the film would later receive an Oscar, at an awards show presided over by Ellen) said his goal is "to try to change people's minds about the climate crisis. Whoever is our next president, we need to make a shift or we're in trouble." So, if Gore finds the current crop of candidates to lack sufficient concern for the environment, perhaps he'll run?

This is interesting: The New York Times political blog 'The Caucus' reports that while all of the Democratic presidential candidates are visiting YearlyKos, the convention of left-wing bloggers, Hillary Clinton didn't get quite the reception she would have liked:

Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards are among those coming. And, it seemed, they were all participating in the break-out sessions.

While they are all still coming for the main show, it turns out that Senator Clinton is not attending the break-out session. Her campaign says it told the Kos organizers a week ago that she would not be attending the individual session, but the organizers did not announce it until tonight, at the opening dinner. The announcement drew big boos from the audience.

We already know that the left-wing bloggers do not have a lot of love for Hillary due to her Iraq war vote, worries about scandals, and general concerns over her electability. So did the Kos people intentionally hold back on the announcement to present her in a bad light? Could be.

The next few weeks should be very interesting in Democratic presidential politics. John Edwards is a non-candidate, everyone but him knows he doesn't have a prayer. Barack Obama is falling apart at the seams, as his statements on Pakistan and visiting our enemies have highlighted exactly the sort of inexperience that makes him unelectable. For those who do not want Hillary as their nomination, they are running out of choices. It's either make their peace with her, reach down and take another hard look at Bill Richardson, or startup the Draft Al Gore machine.

With a strong economy, and peace abroad and at home, why did American voters (red-state ones, at least) choose George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000?

Democrats and Republicans would do well to consider this question. What did Dubya offer in a time of stability? How much resentment could there have been against a president (Bill Clinton) who left office with a 65 percent approval rating?

Bush offered himself as a faith-based candidate. In a 1999 Republican debate, the Des Moines Register reported, "Each candidate was asked what 'political philosopher or thinker' he identified with most." Dubya responded, "Christ, because he changed my heart."

The Register noted, "In an interview Tuesday morning with Des Moines Register reporters and editors, Bush said he understood the question to be, 'Who's had the most influence on your life?'" Bush's answer, though, indicated a higher identification with faith than many candidates would be willing to profess. This stemmed from Bush's portrayal of himself as a man who used religion to overcome alcoholism.

"Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world/Like a Colossus..." ~Shakespeare

Al Gore might not be the next Julius Caesar, but his influence over the Democratic Party at this point certainly parallels that of J.C. over the Roman Republic.

If Gore decides to run in 2008, Democratic voters have a counterbalance to their party's most visible current candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. More than any other candidate, Gore would remind the Democrats that they have "unfinished business" ... a reckoning with the Republicans after the Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore gave the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000.

The Democratic debaters on Monday night realized this. Only Sen. Joe Biden responded to a two-person question sent from Murfreesboro in Gore's state of Tennessee.

Things just keep getting worse for John McCain.

As his ship starts to sink, he is moving into panic mode. Recently, he ducked off the Senate Floor and went to the Senate cloakroom. With bad news about resignations coming in, he called his fund-raiser and exhorted him to raise more money. It seems he entered into a gray area. The Senate ethic rules forbid campaign activities within Senate facilities.

According to the story in the New York Times, if he solicited campaign contributions, that would be a criminal violation. The article goes on to point out that Senator McCain raised this same charge against Vice President Al Gore when he was running for president.

Nothing is going right for McCain. Opportunity knocks once and then the door closes. It is just a matter of time before he will have to bow out. I only hope he is able to do it gracefully. There was a time, I would have voted for him.

I've served in the U.S. Navy, started my own company that keeps a nice income coming to my employees and pays my taxes. I volunteer as a coach for youth baseball and vote in every election. I'm a simple person living the American dream of raising my kids in a nice house and a town with great schools.

In other words, I'm the typical American, proud of our country, our ideals and our military. But alas, according to a member of the dysfunctional family that claims American royalty, I'm a traitor:

...it was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

Hmm, what is the penalty for treason? In some cases, it's death. Is that what Kennedy is saying, that those who don't believe him and actually have read the facts and formed their own opinions are as bad as the Rosenbergs, John Lindh and Aldrich Ames? Does Kennedy actually believe that questioning the conventional wisdom is akin to selling state secrets to our enemies or taking up arms against ones nation? Sadly (especially in the case of selling secrets to the commies), I believe he does.

Our country was formed on the U.S. Constitution, not the Kyoto Protocols. The left is always big on saying "dissent is patriotic", except in this case my friends, except in this case. How dare Kennedy, Jr. call me a traitor based on his stunted understanding of junk science. How dare he question me when, given the chance to help the environment, he sided with uncle Teddy and shot down a good idea because it would have personally inconvenienced him to a small degree. No hypocrisy there because he's a Kennedy.

People are skeptical of the entire global warming issue. They made it clear yesterday with three quarters tuning out:

The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

Considering that 80% were following the immigration debate, that's pretty sorry numbers for Al Gore's dream.

Let's put this global warming issue into perspective, shall we? The planet is getting hotter as many scientists have pointed out, but it has been warming and cooling for millenia. This latest warming trend is a natural occurrence that is not even a blip in the history of our planet. Greenland was once a rain forest for crying out loud. Of course, the scientists who figured that out will soon be seen as outcasts.