Al Gore was the most pro-environment candidate ever.

[LisaM]

To people who prioritize this issue, yet think the Dems have nominated weak candidates, I have two words.

The first one starts with Eff, and the second one starts with You.

Earth is in the balance, and we tried our hearts out to elect the right person.

[Iliyah]

1. Al Gore cared about the USA.

What a hell of a president he would have been.

[LisaM]

3. I know.

A country led by Al Gore, then John Kerry, then Hillary Clinton, could have gone down in history as a great nation.

I will never apologize for these nominees. They are fantastic. Green New Deal? It was within our grasp.

[rampartc]

2. the most pro environment candidate ever

maybe teddy Roosevelt but I am fond of jimmy carter.

why do you suppose that the author of earth in the balance was unable to convince his most pro environment opponent to join him?

[LisaM]

4. Nader?

He was a delusional narcissist.

[rampartc]

5. i don't think so

it would have been relatively easy for gore to convince mr nader, who has always been interested in issues that are important to we democratic voters, that the environment could be protected better by gore than by his triangulating predecessor. why not meet and make him an offer?

[LisaM]

7. Err, no.

If Ralph Nader cared an iota about the environment, he would have apologized to Gore long ago.

The fact is that he claimed there was not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. I suppose he could have been more wrong, but not in my book.

[Hortensis]

6. :) The "most ever" PRESIDENTIAL candidate TO THAT POINT.

Just adding that Gore's awareness was already common among Democrats in office, and since then virtually the entire rest have caught up.

The typical Democratic member of congress now has a 100% League of Conservation Voters rating (the "gold standard" for this), the typical Republican 0%. To put it mildly, the LCV LIKES Democrats.

Just because my husband just showed this to me:

[LisaM]

9. But we were lectured to for picking a weak candidate.

Now we are lectured to about a Green New Deal.

At some point, we need to lecture voters for ignoring what's been hiding in plain sight.

People can't have it both ways. We have nominated wonderful candidates.

[Hortensis]

12. :) When your reason for political existence is dissension,

driven by your own nature, what other option is there? And of course many can have it both ways when that's their nature.

I forgot to put in LCV's address for those driven by a need to know the truth.

http://scorecard.lcv.org/overview-2018-scorecard

"The good news is that, by and large, this legislation was dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. Thanks to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the “Green Firewall” of defense, the overwhelming majority of the House’s harmful legislative proposals didn’t even come up for a vote."

The senate Democrats' “Green Firewall” of defense.

[hlthe2b]

8. There is a need for both enthusiasm AND knowledge of history for our next generation to

accomplish all that needs to happen. I see much of the former, but all too often a bit too little of the latter.

I'm not intentionally insulting anyone, but this is the truth as I see it.

[kevink077]

10. And Green Party spoiled that

He was too conservative for the “green” party LOL. Green party of course is paid for by far right groups..,

[LisaM]

11. "Green".

What a joke.

[JI7]

14. Ralph Nader was reluctant to support Paul Wellstone also

he finally gave a weak endorsement shortly before he died becsuse his lack of support was exposing him for the fraud most could already see he was.

remember that Paul wellstone was in a tough election that year. for those who claim to be liberal the question of supporting him should easily have been yes and how imporant it was to keep someone like him in office.

it took wellstone dying for him to say something more positive about him.

[JI7]

13. John Kerry also

he got the earliest endorsement from league of conservation voters during the primary at the time . Hillary got an earlier one in 2015 for 2016.

these were candidates with great records on issues. that's why they won the nomination. and even after they"lost" they continue to fight for those issues. even now while out of office.

but during all of these elections and even during both of Obama's there have been the same types who spread the same crap about how bad they were and keeping the people down and other crap.

and another thing is that Jay Inslee is the best candidate on this issue during this election but i don't see those types who are always reluctant to support Democrats for not being good enough on the issue supporting him.

[LisaM]

15. I went and heard John Kerry speak in 2004 on the waterfront in Seattle.

It was an absolutely fantastic speech, and the (large) crowd, who'd waited in the rain, was really into it. He spoke knowledgeably about the Pacific Northwest and really focused on the environmental issues here.

I won't even pretend that this speech got any national coverage, but even locally, it was pretty much roundly ignored by the media. One local TV station showed him pulling up at Canlis (fancy local restaurant) to take his wife out for an anniversary dinner. Cue the "elitist" John Kerry BS, with nary a thought to his thoughtful and charismatic speech.

Yet MSNBC and CNN could spend months showing Donald Trump making the same speech over and over to angry men in MAGA hats, and tell us we have bad candidates.

I'm sorry, I woke up this morning and could not shake off this rant. I'm so tired of this. Yes, Inslee is good, and he's getting zero traction, while "Mayor Pete" is followed by an adoring press. These are strange times. I don't mean anything against Mayor Pete, but Inslee, with a far more substantive resume and actively pushing a green agenda, is essentially ignored.