I thought it was a pretty good article myself... But then again I like Al Gore, think he would make a great president*, and believe strongly that global climate change is a very serious issue. I guess what "propaganda" is depends on your perception of reality.
* after all he did get elected once, despite what the supreme court decided :-)
it was the Hillary bit that so turns my stomach. Why does an article about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize need a reference to Hillary in almost every paragraph?
Personally, I think Al Gore is a bit slimy. The "documentary" that prompted this win is sprinkled with inaccuracies, so many in fact that in the UK it can't be shown in schools without disclaimers; however, that doesn't negate the fact that climate change is certainly an issue. I don't know that his contribution is Nobel Prize worthy, but I do think it deserved its own article.
I am also aware that our political opinions... well, lets just leave it at this... neither of us are Republican. That may be the most common ground we can muster. ;)
...but if Gore were running against Hillary, I'd vote for Gore. As much as I'd like to see a lady be President, she just really wouldn't be the lady I'd pick.
I think Gore would be a good President, too, honestly. Better than any of the other major contenders out there. But some little part of me will be disappointed in him if he does run. My suspicious little mind will assume he "did all this" to help his political career instead of because it just plain needed done.
• 12 October 2007 - I beg to differ
* after all he did get elected once, despite what the supreme court decided :-)