TBT posted a document critical of Gore from someone whose bona fides were seriously amiss.

Failure to research and reveal that is damaging to TBT.

The credibility of the source must be considered when offering it for its condemnation of an advocate of public policy.

If X testifies before congress we must know their bona fides. If as refutation to their testimony, or refutation to their position, one points to Y, we must know who Y is.

Failure to disclose professional affiliations when they are important, damages credibility.

When someone has worked as a Corporate advocate, it must be disclosed when they are offering refutation in such an instance. It is a conflict of interest.

As for Gore, in all matters of public advocacy the question must be cui bono?

Who benefits? Does Gore benefit from anything he is advocating?

Show me how.

As for Obama's affiliations, your mention of Ayers is meaningless as has been amply demonstrated.

Ayers WAS a radical, but that first fact was displaced by many years from the association with Obama. The second fact invalidates the reference to the first fact.

They served on a board together with a number of Republicans. Where is the impeachment of them?Nowhere, because it was a smear campaign by political hacks.

So was the smear campaign concerning Wright.

I consider the mention of Wright as more significant because I think he was a credible social critic and the affiliation with his social criticism was not a problem to me.

It was viewed as a problem by Obama in search of the dim witted support of the mainstream masses who he must have felt were susceptible to the 24/7 attack on Wright. The attack itself was highly racial in overtone.

Put more simply. if I had been Obama I would have said 'right on brother, god damn america.' He didn't want to do that. Instead, he denied he was ever there when Wright made the most inflamed and famous statements. For me that is a problem but not the way you meant. Obama never wanted to be seen as the angry black man. That would be fine with me, he would have a whole lot to be angry about. I might have voted for him, I donated to his campaign until his FISA vote at which point I was off his bus.

I am an atheist so I reasonably try to avoid invoking any imaginary deities.

As for my screen name, it is Alice X Chomsky Nader.

My actual name is not Alice nor X nor Chomsky nor Nader.

The Alice X part I will not go into, Chomsky and Nader, each in their own way, from my standpoint, are the two greatest living advocates for the rights of individual Americans, taken as a whole.

There have been others in history. Eugene V. Debs was one. He was a five time socialist candidate for President.

Both Chomsky and Nader refer to him.

Both I would call environmentalists, but not strictly per se.

I use their names as the greatest compliment I can think of. They haven't complained. If they do I will change it.

In 1996 I voted for Nader.

In 2000 I voted for Gore, even though he ran an abysmal campaign that ranged far to the right of where I was comfortable.

Anyone who could write Earth in the Balance could get my vote if done properly.

I hope and trust that Gore's presentation is pure enough to find favor with both Chomsky and Nader. They never give away false praise and they never pull their punches in when scorn of the disingenuous profiteers in search of self aggrandizement.

Neither do I.

Whether his program is too pure for Congress is another question.

The Corporate Trained Seals in our corrupt congress will not want to hear, nor broadcast the unvarnished truth about the damage the vast greed of their masters is wrecking on the Earth.