(Cross-posted at Daily Kos.)Let me start this off by saying that I like Al Gore. I like him enough that I voted for him in 2000, like the majority of Americans did. I also like him enough that, if he were to decide to run in 2008, I would most certainly vote for him again.
But right now, at this time, there's something we should be paying a lot more attention to, rather than pushing for a Gore presidential run in two years' time: This year's upcoming midterm elections.
Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth, is generating a lot of discussion right now, which is good. It's get people who may not have thought about global warming previously to actually ponder the consequences of what we and our "elected" representatives are allowing to happen to the planet. It's also changing the minds of many who didn't believe that we are a major part of the problem. Again, that's awesome, and I fully support Gore's efforts to bring attention to this.
Myself, I haven't been able to see the film yet, as it hasn't shown up anywhere near me where I could reasonably expect to make the trip. (My car is on its last legs.) However, when it shows in Flint, Michigan later this month, there's nothing that will stop me from seeing it. And I'll probably write about it in the same glowing terms I've read from others who have seen it.
As you can see from the long-winded introduction I've just written, even for someone who has not seen the film, the whole Gore phenomenon tends to catch you up and keep you entangled in it. And that's what I wanted to discuss.
Right now, as I type this, we are in the run-up to the mid-term elections that could put the House and Senate back in our hands. A substantial amount of time and space have been put into making sure we're all aware of this, especially here, at Daily Kos, where we are regularly kept abreast of the current polls in many of the congressional districts that are up for grabs.
However, as I surf back and forth between the other "mainstream" news sources available out there, I'm not seeing it nearly as much as I think I should be seeing it, especially considering how historical this election cycle may turn out to be.
It seems that the only time anything about any of the current campaigns or those that are running shows up in the press is when someone is (allegedly) caught doing something that they shouldn't have been. Case in point, the ongoing (and admittedly entertaining) hoopla surrounding the Katherine Harris mess that's masquerading as a campaign. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but what about all the others?
Ned Lamont is getting a lot of press concerning his run against Lieberman. The stories are valid, as is the interest. However, it appears the fact that he's challenging Joe Lieberman is secondary, from most of the stories I've read. Instead, they focus on Lieberman's DINO status, as well as the support Lamont has gotten from the netroots.
Francine Busby in CA-50 is getting attention, too, but I sumbit that this is because it was Randy "Duke" Cunningham's district, and the scandal caught the attention of many national news sources. The people who want to fill the spot are, at best, secondary to the folks who write the stories for the "mainstream media".
These three items are, really, the only ones that I can recall seeing mentioned regularly on television and on the various news sites. It's not really that surprising, in that these various races that aren't being mentioned are, technically, "local" issues (a guy living in Oregon can't vote in the Michigan election, so why should he care?), although they will help decide who will be making the rules on a national basis.
With the current possibility, as I mentioned above, of the Democrats retaking both houses of Congress looking more and more likely, it seems that the importance of it has taken a backseat to Al Gore coming out from his own "undisclosed location" to promote his new movie. Suddenly, there's an overwhelming netroots push for Gore to run for president in 2008, including on DKos, when one has a few minutes to take a break from writing about troll ratings. The enthusiasm for such a run has even made its way to the mainstream press, where much speculation has gone into whether it's going to happen.
I can't help but wonder whether this focus on a potential Gore run in 2008 is distracting us from keeping the pressure on for the mid-term elections. Some may point out that, because the numbers are so much in our favor, we can afford to take a break and speculate about 2008. I might remind those who would suggest this that the numbers were in our favor in 2000, as well as on election night 2004, according to exit polls. Both times, it got away from us (conspiracy theories aside), and we were paying close attention then.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I support Al Gore and would enthusiastically support a run in 2008. But right here, right now, I'm going to be paying attention to what's going to happen in a few short months, not what may or may not happen two years from now.
I would implore the rest of you to consider doing the same. We've got to keep on eye on this, lest it gets pulled out from under us again.
All the best,
Derek
(DCF)
Subscribe to The DCF News