How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

More Gore:

On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"

Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TV commercials for their next re-election campaign.

I admit I am impressed with his effort at avoiding a partisan stance. He is criticizing the entire Senate, possibly minus Byrd. But has he lost it? Do Senators really feel that what they say on the floor doesn't matter? By virtue of his experience, he has me at a disadvantage, but I do personally care what is said on the floor of the Senate. The problem is, most of it is not worthy of note - it is parliamentarian, partisan bickering. We all know that the deals are made in private, and the grandstanding is done on TV, so the floor of the Senate probably isn't very important after all.

Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television. The internet is a formidable new medium of communication, but it is important to note that it still doesn't hold a candle to television.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't watch television, and I certainly don't use it to get information about the world. Why would you turn on the TV when you have high speed internet available? And soon you will have that available wherever you go, due to the collectivist democracies we call American cities. Don't be surprised if Gore's idea is profitable, but is eventually supplanted by video blogs online.

(Rammage, please look into upgrading AtlasBlogged to video soon.)

Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a "Public Sphere" , or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America's earliest decades.

I really, honestly think he makes a great point. It's worth a read. Again, the transcript to his speech is here.

One last highlight (with emphasis added by me) - think about how exciting it is to be alive for all of this:

The greatest source of hope for reestablishing a vigorous and accessible marketplace for ideas is the Internet. Indeed, Current TV relies on video streaming over the Internet as the means by which individuals send us what we call viewer-created content... We also rely on the Internet for the two-way conversation that we have every day with our viewers enabling them to participate in the decisions on programming our network...
[but] as exciting as the Internet is, it still lacks the single most powerful characteristic of the television medium; because of its packet-switching architecture, and its continued reliance on a wide variety of bandwidth connections (including the so-called "last mile" to the home), it does not support the real-time mass distribution of full-motion video.
It is true that video streaming is becoming more common over the Internet, and true as well that cheap storage of streamed video is making it possible for many young television viewers to engage in what the industry calls "time shifting" and personalize their television watching habits. Moreover, as higher bandwidth connections continue to replace smaller information pipelines, the Internet's capacity for carrying television will continue to dramatically improve. But in spite of these developments, it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America's democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America's democracy is at grave risk.

Others talking:
Brendan Nyhan, focusing more on Gore's eventual partisanship and penchant for stretching the truth - good post.