What Gore, Clinton And Democrats Can Learn From Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto was no angel, but she was a believer in democracy who gave her life for her country, retuning to Pakistan knowing she would probably give her life for her country.

By contrast, Democrats in Washington have a life crisis, consult an army of pollsters, and have trouble taking clear leadership stands on war and peace because members of a Congress with record unpopularity might lose another point or two in the polls.

Our discredited politics in America has become a said Kabuki dance of insiders congratulating and protecting each other, of pollsters and pundits uttering sweet nothings into the ears of politicians too fearful and self-indulgent to take even minimal risks for the higher values of our country.

Benazir Bhutto gives her life. Democrats in Washington cannot risk a point in the polls. Republicans in Washington cannot summon the courage to speak out against a president and war that many of them privately, silently, believe is a disaster for our country.

Meanwhile young heroes give their lives in this unwise war our insiders sent them to fight from the safety of their focus groups and polls and their smugness while they dispense their wisdom caked in make-up from the safety of their television studios.

Give Al Gore credit for elevating the debate about climate change, but at a moment that our country, under George Bush, sabotaged the Bali summit why isn't Al Gore running for president?

Never have the man and the moment come together so perfectly as Al Gore for president in 2008. Never has any potential candidate been so clearly the heir to Roosevelt and Kennedy, never has any potential candidate so clearly embodied change when change is needed, and experience when experience is needed, as Al Gore for president in 2008.

Having supported Gore through campaigns and governance over a generation, words cannot express my disappointment, my sadness and to some degree my outrage that Al Gore had better things to do, then be leader of the free world.

Movies and books can be important, and even great; making money through venture capital for worthy businesses is fine; awards, honors, prizes and standing ovations are wonderful but they are marginal compared to the leadership of the free world, by America, in our times.

Does Al Gore, or anyone, seriously believe that any presidential candidate, in either party, is even remotely as committed to the battle to save the Earth from the planetary emergency as Gore? If the world is truly in danger of extinction unless major changes are made within the term of the next President, isn't there some higher obligation to hold the one office that can lead the nation and the world towards those changes?

My hope is that Gore at least makes a major endorsement for change in the coming hours, but the real shame is that our strongest leader does not lead where it matters the most, and the voice of both experience and change is silenced on the most important debate about the future of our nation and the world.

Benazir Bhutto gave her life for her country; Democrats so often lack the courage of their convictions to risk even a few points in the polls; and Al Gore racks up the prizes and awards, no doubt deserved, but sadly silenced when the man who should have been leader of the free world, had higher priorities.

Benazir Bhutto's murder is a moment of outrage and sadness, of crisis and shock, but it also a reminder of the power of hope, of the higher purpose of patriotism, and of the higher truth that one woman can make a difference, if she gives enough of a damn to try, and puts everything on the line for the cause she believes in and the country she loves.

Good-bye, Benazir, you may be gone, but you will be remembered and honored. Perhaps some day in the land that gave us Washington and Lincoln, some heroic leader will emerge once again, inspired by your courage and your example, and rise above the mediocrity and timidity of our times, as you did in yours.

Comments

[batguano]

Thanks Brent, you always live up to expectations in your commentary and analysis.
Given that Al Gore has stated his chosen place in our future and how best to help our nation and the world, and we must respect that, the best choice in '08 is John Edwards. Edwards is not a second choice, but should be seen as the strongest candidate for the middle class, trade policy, health care, the environment, to rein in greedy corporations, restoration of our Honor and a secure future for our children in his own right. He has spoken the plain direction he would move our nation without the mouthful of mumbles or fork-tongued deceit that burdens many others. There is no doubt that Al Gore would have a place in an Edwards Administration.
If you haven't read any of Edwards speeches, here is one worth the time. I believe he deserves our trust, respect and support; I urge all to hear John Edwards words and message.
Here is the link to Edwards Oct 29, 2007 speech. Powerful words from Candidate Edwards.
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/

[peterg76]

Well, Gore isn't going to run for the Republican Party or the other Republican Party, so he'd have to start a party of his own.

Might be worth a try though.

[Rosanneofpgh]

Much as I would love to see Al Gore run for president, I, too, understand why he wouldnt want to do that. Aside from his tireless work on global warming, I believe he just doesnt want to subject himself and his family to the vitriol that is so common and so accepted in the political world.

He has been absolutely savaged by the rethugs and the msm and he would be a fool to let himself and his family in for all that crap again. For what?? Just to be president of a third world-like country that needs a thorough housecleaning from top to bottom???

Whatever else you may say about Mr. Gore, he is no fool. He earned his laurels; let him rest on them now.

(psst, Al, please run.) GORE/EDWARDS IN 2008

[RepublicanBrain]

Al Gore would not make a good president. That's why he lost in the first place. He would never be a Roosevelt, and Kennedy did little more then restore dignity to the office. His movie has been discredited, he won the Peace Prize for something totally unrelated to peace, and the list goes on.

There is a valuable nugget of truth here: Democrats are too timid. They make for ineffective leaders because of it. This is why they lose. When they pick stances, the people realize what they believe in, so Democrats go vague.

If the Democrats want to win, they need three things. One, they need a leader who is a doer. Two, they need a doer who follows through on his plans. Three, they need plans that are valid, logical, and fair to the millions of people in this country. There are a few doers in the Democrats, but you can forget about the other two.

This is the lesson to take from Bhutto. Do things.

[aznurse]

Al Gore is just one person, Where is the outrage from the rest of the country? There should be marches on Washington, marches on CNN,NBC,ABC,CBS and even fox. Make it difficult to get in their buildings. Except for bloggers, nobody else seems to be saying anything that has an attention span of more than 2 days.

[anfractuous]

Gore, with good reason, has decided to shape opinion from without, realizing that this country breeds dolts like a stagnant pond breeds mosquitos. Why should he address himself to drooling candidates for mandatory sterilization, when he can argue to much greater effect to the conscious, conscientous and powerful of this world, who can most readily effect change?
This country is such a self-celebratory cesspool of righteous ignorance that we actually deserve the worst Nature can provide. Unfortunately, Nature is a blunt instrument and unless we all respond, all will suffer.
Gore is now a citizen of the World and should act accordingly.

[trevor01]

I like Al Gore. The fact that he meant it when he said he wasn't running only increases my admiration for the man. He has everything he wants and in his heart of hearts he knows that human beings can only do so much about the environment no matter how much they think of themselves.

[WillSweet]

I don't think it's appropriate to criticize Gore for not running. Although I too would have liked to see him run. I think almost all who previously supported him would do so again and quite a lot more as well making victory almost certain. But it is ultimately a personal decision. I do agree with you entirely about the lack of courage and commitment by todays' politicians and their obsession with polls and popularity. They might be suprised how fast their popularity would grow if they actually demonstrated conviction in spite of poll numbers. But don't expect from any of our polititions the kind of courage displayed by Benazir Bhutto.

[happytrails]

"a sad kabuki dance" indeed. Have you seen the first act of THE GREEN TABLE? The ballet was written before WWII in response to the "war to end all wars" and is a powerful indictment of business as usual. Death strides in, killing everything in his wake. The only things missing are the flight suit, the aircraft carrier, and the oil pipelines. It is a perfect symbol of the present craven government under the non-leadership of Reid and Pelosi.
To get back on point: if you were Gore, would you want to try to clean up the filthy mess made by unbridled greed and a complete disregard for humanity?

[Annisee]

Once again, Mr. Budowsky you say exactly what I am thinking - but in much more elegant fashion!

I hope Al Gore has an opportuniy to read your words.

[gclum]

Al Gore would be a great president. But it's his choice. I personally believe he thinks that he will do a better job of focusing attention to his most important issue by not being president. That decision, while not popular with people who want him to run, is also significant and shows his commitment to the cause. I salute Al Gore in whatever he chooses to do with this election. I don"t blame him one bit for not running.