I realize America is obsessed about Iraq and terrorism, but the environment is barely on the radar screen, and the Democratic candidates have done little to focus the debate, apart from a few tertiary soundbites. A far cry from polls in Canada:
CBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007. N=1,214 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
War in Iraq 34
Health care 8
Terrorism (general) 5
President Bush 4
Gas/Heating oil crisis 3
The Harris Poll. July 6-9, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?" Open-ended
The war 27
Health care (not Medicare) 19
The economy (non-specific) 10
Foreign policy (non-specific) 7
Gas and oil prices 5
I'm not suggesting the Democratic candidates are stiffs on the environment, the League of Conservation Voters gave the following ratings:
Edwards 37% (ouch)
What I am saying, Gore would sharpen the debate, bring the issue to the fore and get people talking. As it stands now, the issue is discussed, but not to the extent it should be, given the scenario. Gore has much to say, on many issues, and lately he is being characterized as the "soul of the Democratic Party", but for the sake of the cause, a run for President would accomplish a great deal, beyond any personal ambition. Gore should run as an extension of his awareness campaign, I can't think of a better vehicle. Whether Gore secures the nomination is secondary at this point, his presence would clearly light a fire under the Democratic Party, which appears to be lacking at present.