For the next year or so, I will from time to time, give my thoughts on what’s unfolding in the upcoming race(s) for the US presidency. I will try to keep it real, in hope of generating some debate on the threads (something that seems to be waning in recent times). Lately, I have started to wonder if the “blogs” are losing their novelty status; or is it that people are just getting back to their usual spaces of political-disenchantment? In these here parts, there appear to be few lively threads anymore.

As the presidential primaries approach, I am getting the sense that Democrats think they have a lock on the “win” next November; I don’t share that view. Despite the ineptitude of the Bush administration (in too many areas to enumerate here), next November would be a dogfight no matter who the Republicans nominate. Not withstanding the Iraq debacle- which will be still going on then- Democrats need to be very careful that complacency doesn’t set in. Because they are out-raising the Republicans by barrels full of “mullah”, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t lots of landmines between here and the White House. As important as it is, money isn’t everything in politics folks. Just a personal observation, that’s all.

Let me go on record by saying that Hilary Rodham-Clinton would be the worst choice for Democrats (if I haven’t said this before). As much as I love Barack Obama as a candidate and also as a human being, I am starting to fantasize an Al Gore (president) with Barack Obama (vice-president) ticket. Am I alone on this folks? Tell Cousin Rocky what you think.

Recently, Hilary Rodham-Clinton did a “one-eighty” turn, when she suddenly announced that if elected president, she would sit down with the leader of Iran and do a “face to face”. She also implied that she would meet with other so-called “rogue” leaders in the same capacity. What was edifying about all this was Hilary’s continued lack of honesty and substance on many an issue. Some people call her perpetually waffling positions “triangulation”; I call her perpetually waffling positions: dishonest. We really don’t need another lying Clinton (or Bush) in the White House folks; we really don’t; enough already!

There's a petition. Sign it here.

Breaking out of Oslo: Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, together with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC.

The New York Times:

OSLO, Oct. 12 — The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to Al Gore, the former vice president, and to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.

The award is likely to renew calls from Mr. Gore’s supporters for him to run for president in 2008, joining an already crowded field of Democrats. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, has said he is not interested in running but has not flatly rejected the notion.[...]

The Bay Area has been the staging area for an online movement to draft Mr. Gore to mount another campaign for the White House. A San Francisco-based Web site, www.Draftgore.com, claims more than 165,000 signatures and comments on an online petition, including several placed early this morning congratulating Mr. Gore on his win.

The same group also placed a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Wednesday, pleading with Mr. Gore to rectify his bitter defeat in 2000, when he won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college after the Supreme Court ruled against a recount in Florida.

Run, Al, run. Your country needs you.

Hat tip to Rochester Turning

If only...

Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his first public appearance since announcing switching from the Republican Party to being an independent, a press conference celebrating the alleged success of his 311 program, to showcase his policy creativity to the media.

Bloomberg’s aware that his leaving the Republican Party would confirm to the media, his current constituents and potential presidential voters, that he’s pursuing an independent Presidential candidacy, despite saying wink, wink, I’m not running, and knew the world be watching his first appearance after making public his official political independence. This is why Bloomberg is using a press conference honoring 311, a program that he is particularly but unjustifiably proud of, as the location of his personal Presidential Debutante Ball.

Bloomberg hoped touting 311 success would perpetuate the myth that he’s a non-partisan problem solver. But the emperor has no clothes. 311 is useless.

Last night was the beginning of a wonderful event in politics.... "The fake debates".

As I watched last night a couple of things came to mind.

1. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were for the most part strong throughout the process.

2. I want Mike Gravel at every debate and he must get more questions and air time. Then get his own show and I would watch.

3. John Edwards looked so pretty last night I thought he was posing for GQ not running for President. Not to mention he long pause as he looked toward God when they asked who is moral leader was. I though he was expecting God to come down and say" Oh that is me Brain, John looks up to me."

4. Bill Ricardson did a poor job overall. Too much hand movement and body movement. At times long winded and overextending his time. He needs to fine tune for the next debate.

5. Why were people in the audience fanning themselves with their programs? You would think a large great college like that would have the AC on?

6. If anyone gained or lost undecided people it would look like this for each......

1. Gravel: gained.... Why well if he went from 2 votes to 4 he still gets my vote as most entertaining and needs a position in the next administration anyway.

(Author's note: Yes, I'm doing a little bragging here, but I deserve it, and besides, it's just a little bit.)

On the day former Vice President Al Gore testifies on Capitol Hill, I bought a new light bulb. It cost me over $16, and I’m saving money on it.

Yes, you read that right. The savings come because I didn’t buy the usual, or incandescent, light bulb. Instead, I bought a “compact fluorescent” light bulb, which is more expensive to purchase but ends up costing a lot less.

What’s that? You’re not willing to take me at my word? You want me to prove it? And you’re wondering what my light bulb has to do with Al Gore? All right, I’ll prove it, and I’ll tie the light bulb in with the former Vice President.

First of all, I’ll explain the savings from my new light bulb. My old incandescent light bulb used 75 watts of power and lasted somewhere between 750 and 1,000 hours. The new bulb uses 20 watts and will last about 6,000 hours. As a result, I will be using 55 fewer watts, and that adds up. Based on the rate charged on my latest electric bill, I’ll save...

What will I save? Read on.

For most Americans, hearing about global warming involves a fair amount of taking things on faith. When Rush Limbaugh blatantly lied and claimed that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, how would most people know he was telling a lie based on a something like 10-fold overestimate in the amount of carbon Pinatubo was ejecting and on a conflation of two different kinds of carbon: carbon dioxide and particulates.

When Al Gore tells us what's up, most people would consider it just as reliable as Rush Limbaugh's lies. But I am lucky. First of all, I do keep up on the scientific literature, including climate research to some extent. But my ability to understand the details is limited because I am a biologist.

But my wife is a climatologist. So when I hear Al Gore, either live, as I was lucky to do some years back, or watching An Inconvenient Truth right now on Showtime, I am watching it with my wife and her friends, who all know the science behind it backwards and forwards. They know this material the same way you and I might know addition and subtraction. They know the facts Al Gore is talking about.

Both times I have heard Al Gore's presentation on Global Warming, I have one or more fact checkers right next to me. My fact checkers pretty much approve Al Gore's message in its entirety.

The global warming "debate" is not what the right wing portrays it as. Long ago a solid, overwhelming consensus was reached among scientists that a.) global warming is happening, b.) that humans are contributing to warming, and c.) warming will seriously impact our civilization in the near future...maybe already is.

The debate among scientists has shifted to details. Will there be localized cooling in the North Atlantic? Where will there be droughts and where flooding? How rapidly and how bumpy will the changes be? But the main question for all of society is whether it is too late to do anything. THAT is the new global warming debate. I have two answers to this: we sure had BETTER be able to do something about it and YES, WE CAN!

I have been aware of global warming science for at least 25 years. The science goes back even further, to the 1960's when measuring carbon dioxide levels and the observation that carbon dioxide was increasing were first done by Roger Revelle. Way back then, Revelle noticed changes and predicted that temperatures would rise as a result. When I became aware of global warming some 25 years ago, many predictions were made: increased storminess, Northward migration of tropical diseases, increased variability of temperature extremes, etc. What has astonished me as I read about current global warming science is just how many of the predictions of 25 years ago are coming true. In science the value of a theory is in its predictive value. From what I can tell as an informed, though not professional, observer is that the predictive value of the global warming models has been good. Details may be inacurate, but the general predictions have come true.