Do you remember way back in 2000? Waaaaaayyy waaaaaaaaay back before 9/11 and hybrid cars and Pirates of the Caribbean (the movies)? I didn't vote for Gore in that election, I voted for Nader. I didn't vote for Gore for a number of reasons.
Before you start pointing fingers at me and blaming me for Dubya, let's make this clear. I live in Chicago. Illinois is a Democratic state (at least in Chicago), it always goes democrat, so I wasn't worried if my vote would sway the state. If I lived in Ohio or Florida, it'd be a different story.
The Gore of those days is not the Gore of today. Like many, many Democrats, he never had a firm stance on anything. Now, I can appreciate this sometimes as someone who examines both sides of an issue, and doesn't make pig-headed decisions, but you can't run a campaign that way. It inspires no faith at all if you can't say that you know where your next leader stands.
My opinion on Dubya is pretty clear, but as many critics of his have agreed on, he can stay on topic (even if his topic should get him impeached and jailed). Gore then would meander all over the place, never showing that he could lead when he couldn't even take a firm stance on anything. Kerry, who I also liked, had this same problem. Clinton had the same problem, too, but was fortunately running against an unpopular president and a baboon, respectively.
That was Gore then.
Gore now isn't the same guy. He's a man with issues (in a good way). He's always been a man of integrity, but now he is willing to show it, to stand up for it. And good for him, I say, and more to the fact good for us, beacuse without Al, we wouldn't be having this Green Rennaisance that we're having. No one would be giving a shit about hybrid cars or recycling, except for residents of California and Greatful Dead fans.
There's a big article on him in Time. You should check it out.
