Tom Friedman gushes: Who will be the next Al Gore?

When I last blogged about Tom Friedman, he was yearning for a 9/10 president in a post-9/11 world. Today, we find him giddy with excitement over the Goracle’s Nobel Peace prize win last Friday. Friedman opines (emphasis added):

Seeing Al Gore so deservedly share the Nobel Peace Prize, it is impossible not to note the contrast in his leadership and that of George W. Bush.

Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush each faced a crucible moment. For Mr. Gore, it was winning the popular vote and having the election taken away from him by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. For Mr. Bush, it was the shocking terrorist attack on 9/11.

Funny how the court is “Republican-dominated” when it rules against liberals, but is fair and balanced when it makes a ruling that liberals favor.

Continuing:

Mr. Gore lost the presidency, but in the dignity and grace with which he gave up his legal fight, he united America. Then, faced with what to do with the rest of his life, he took up a personal crusade to combat climate change, even though the odds were stacked against him, his soapbox was small, his audiences were measured in hundreds, and his critics were legion. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore stuck with it and over time has played a central role in building a global consensus for action on this issue.

He united America? Gimme a break! Al Gore was responsible for dragging that election out for weeks, and as a result, the cries of “stolen election” were and still are the catalyst for so much for so much of the Bush-hatred we see today- from the likes of liberals like, well, Tom Friedman. Matt Ortega takes on Friedman’s revisionist history on the election here, while Jules Crittenden tackles some other Friedman fantasies here.

Judging by the quality – or rather, lack thereof – of the NYT’s opinion section, especially as of late, it’s no wonder sales of Times Select were so low that they made the opinion pages free again.