The Case for Gore

Michael Hirsch says Al Gore should run for president. I think it's really too late for that, and clear enough that he doesn't want to do it that there's really no point in urging him. A successful presidential candidate, after all, has to really want to win. That said, I agree with the basic sentiment: Gore hits the sweet spot of experience and vision in a way that nobody else can. What's more, a person who's in a position to be a viable presidential candidate and who believes the things Gore says he believes almost has a duty to run, a duty that I'm sad he hasn't seen fit to take up.

Photo by Flickr user Kangotraveler used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I've wondered how well he'd do as a 3rd party or a write in candidate. So what if it torpedos the dem nominee if he could also finish off the repub candidate as well..all's well. If after both parties nominees are selected and in a three way poll including Gore he's faring pretty well, I mean why not?

Posted by judson | December 14, 2007 11:51 AM

I hope Gore is willing at least to run for vice-president again. I would love to have either an Obama/Gore ticket or even an Edwards/Gore ticket.

Of course, if Edwards and Obama perform well enough against Clinton in the primaries, the Democrats may end their primaries with no candidate possessing a majority of delegates. This could open the door to a Gore draft on the part of the delegates for Obama and Edwards.

Posted by eltoro | December 14, 2007 11:55 AM

He really should have run in 2004. It's hard to imagine him losing that election.

Posted by right | December 14, 2007 11:57 AM

"Gore hits the sweet spot of experience and vision in a way that nobody else can."

Too bad running for and being President is a political job, which happens to be Gore's weakness.

If only we had government by a Council of Elders, Gore would be perfect to run things. Instead, given our democratic setup, we'll just have to settle for him advising President Edwards on environmental policy.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 11:58 AM

If he had wanted to run, he'd be in the race by now. I don't think he has a duty to run. He served as a VP and ran for office in 2000. He was ill-served by the party, the country and the media. If he has the attitude- well, screw you guys, I'm going to take a different approach to trying to influence policy, are you willing to hold it against him.

In a better world, all of our candidates would fit the Al Gore model: reasonably serious, intelligent thinkers. Those would be selling points. Instead, we get 'love-boat' and 'invented the internet'. Amazing that legitimate accomplishments could be turned to mockery- not by legitimate campaign mistakes, but by a media deciding the story works better that way. In a better world candidates like Bush Jr, Giuliani, Fred Thompson wouldn't even see the light of day for being ruthlessly mocked for their lack of substance.

Posted by mpowell | December 14, 2007 11:59 AM

Gore has grown a lot in the last few years. And he has demonstrated a keen insight into the political process that makes it very difficult for him to reconcile with running again.

I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something along the lines that the job of running for president entails an art for the trivial and superficial over substance that he simply cannot abide.

And it's difficult to blame him.

Posted by McKingford | December 14, 2007 12:07 PM

. . . a person who's in a position to be a viable presidential candidate and who believes the things Gore says he believes almost has a duty to run, a duty that I'm sad he hasn't seen fit to take up.

What's the ontological status of a duty someone almost has?

Posted by rmd | December 14, 2007 12:07 PM

I think that just about everything we've been impressed with by Citizen Gore would have been missing from Candidate Gore. I think Gore would very much enjoy serving again as President, and I think he absolutely dreads the very thought of running in a political campaign again.

Posted by El Cid | December 14, 2007 12:11 PM

Gore would be man-bear-pigged to death. Forget it.
TERRIBLE IDEA.

Posted by tinisoli | December 14, 2007 12:15 PM

Anyhow, even allowing for the Kool Kids' antics, Gore proved in 2000 that he's just not cut out for mass market politics. Forget Gore, you need a politician.

Posted by rmd | December 14, 2007 12:15 PM

Duty pshaw. Duty has limits. To more or less echo mpowell: Considering the treatment he received from the nation's media, his own party, and the Supreme Court last time he ran for President, Al Gore would be eminently justified in telling his country to go fuck itself. To his tremendous credit, he hasn't.

Posted by Ryan | December 14, 2007 12:19 PM

Gore should run for Senate not President. Replacing one of the Tennessee GOP Senators with Gore would do more to further the fight against global warming than would his becoming President.

Posted by Ron | December 14, 2007 12:33 PM

What's more, a person who's in a position to be a viable presidential candidate and who believes the things Gore says he believes almost has a duty to run, a duty that I'm sad he hasn't seen fit to take up.

Wha?

He did "take up" that "duty" 8 years ago. If he doesn't want to go through it again, I can't say I blame him. Especially because if he were to enter the race all of the work he's done over the last 8 years on climate change would go out the window as we got reports on his sighing, his hair, and how he claimed to have invented the internet. Plus we'd probably all have to listen to the chatterers go on incessantly about how he's flying around in a charter jet and how he hasn't turned his home into a 19th century dirt farm.

It would totally destroy the message he's trying to get out. I'm sure he's weighed these things already in his decision not to run. What's more, he probably feels that he could work with any of the Dem nominees to push forward the treaties and ideas he has for the future. So why antagonize them and take the chance that you might lose the election and have someone hostile in the office when you can endorse whoever wins the nomination and possibly get their ear when the next version of Kyoto comes up?

Posted by NonyNony | December 14, 2007 12:35 PM

I don't really blame Gore for not wanting to repeat, either now or in '04. Think about it, as I'm sure he has done very throughly: ick. He's having a good time now, and is influential without all the political crap, which he hates (and was indeed not very good at). Fine.

A point I meant to make earlier is that Petey's 'politics matters' point is not about just elections. I get the feeling that some in the Demosphere think that after you win the election, politics is over and you can get down to the serious business of policy, etc. Not so. If anything, political skills are MORE important to have after you have been elected than they were before - the heavy duty politics have just begun after election day. The Presidency is such a unique job. You have to be relentlessly focused and savvy politically, and at the same time do all the actual executive and administrative stuff. Gore would've been probably magnificent at the latter, but possibly only middling at the former. Not dissing the guy at all, just taking him at his word. I don't blame him at all for not wanting to run the campaign gauntlet yet again to get to the WH, and then to deal with a ransacked government and ridiculous political situation. He's served.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 14, 2007 12:35 PM

I get the impression that Gore has decided that you cannot simultaneously seriously run for president and tell the truth, and he's decided that he'd rather tell the truth.

Oh, and in case anyone brings up Gore's popular-vote victory in 2000: to achieve that victory, Gore had to engage in a hell of a lot of pandering, of the kind that he is no longer willing to do.

Posted by Joe Buck | December 14, 2007 12:42 PM

"The Presidency is such a unique job. You have to be relentlessly focused and savvy politically, and at the same time do all the actual executive and administrative stuff. Gore would've been probably magnificent at the latter, but possibly only middling at the former. Not dissing the guy at all, just taking him at his word."

I actually really respect Gore for understanding and admitting that his skills are not in the political realm.

The easiest path for him after 2000, personally, would have been to take another crack at the Presidency. He seems to understand that doing so would likely hurt the causes and issues he cares about.

The most frustrating people for me in politics are those like Hillary Clinton who have lousy political skills, but aren't willing to come to terms with what that really means for them.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 12:43 PM

"Anyhow, even allowing for the Kool Kids' antics, Gore proved in 2000 that he's just not cut out for mass market politics. Forget Gore, you need a politician."

You do realize the reason you and others think he is not "cut out for mass market politics" is because of the "Kool Kids antics", right?

Given the amount of elections he has won--including 2000, if getting the most votes is the standard you use, despite the Kool Kids and an incumbent president who had been impeached--I'd say his political skills are the equal or better of anyone running.

And please don't give me Obama, come back to that when he has won something besides a state senate seat and a triumph over Alan Keyes.

Posted by Andruw | December 14, 2007 12:46 PM

a person who's in a position to be a viable presidential candidate and who believes the things Gore says he believes almost has a duty to run

The problem is he also believes that the system doesn't work, and that pursuing change from within it is a fool's errand. Once I got past some of the data shock, that was my biggest take-away from An Inconvenient Truth.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | December 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Gore has a duty not to run. It would destroy his ability to play the crucial role he is now playing. Yesterday in Bali he strongly criticized the role of the US government in stalling progress on climate change. If he joins the US government, he becomes another compromised national politician with parochial national obligations and commitments. Now that he has achieved the lofty Schweitzerian position of highly influential global activist-statesman, it would be terrible for him to throw it away on mere national politics. We can find another president.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 14, 2007 12:50 PM

I have to say I'm very taken with the idea he should run for the Senate from Tennessee.

Posted by william | December 14, 2007 12:52 PM

Gore would have easily been the best President in decades.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 14, 2007 12:52 PM

If the Democrats were smart, they would aproach Mr. Gore and ask him to be the nominee. All the polls showed he has more support than all the candidates who have been running. If the Democrats REALLY cared about the majority, than the elite few, if the Democrats cared about the party than just themselves, if they really cared about the people and our future, they will ask Al Gore to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. I already know many REAL Republicans who care about the environment are fully supportive of Mr. Gore, along with the Greens, Inde's Liberals, Progressives and true blue Democrats.

So, isn't it up to them? Mr. Gore after all has said even this year that he would love to be President. A visionary, unmatchable experienced intellect Statesman that has a vision to make the path that we walk to create a better place for all.

As he recently asked, I am keeping my energy in a lock box that only he has a key for. It's up to the Democrats if they will place the betterr for the many, before the want of the few and really make history. Have the World's Leader be America's President.

Time for
a COOL
change,
GORE
2008

Posted by Linda | December 14, 2007 12:53 PM

eltoro, you're absolutely right: Gore should be reaching out to the candidates he likes (presumably, in order of preference: Edwards, Obama ... lots of other people ... McCain, Hillary) to be added to the ticket on the #2 slot.

I've been preaching this for a little while:

http://croatan.blogspot.com/2007/10/al-gore-should-now-run-for.html

As Matt says, it's basically too late in the cycle for Gore to gear up a campaign for the #1 slot.

But he could have a massive impact as the #2 -- in the primary, in the general, and in office. (Just think of what Gore could achieve with an energy/environment portfolio as a post-Cheney VP.)

Basically, if one of the Dem front-runners were to announce Gore as his/her running mate tomorrow, the primaries would be *over*.

Posted by The Confidence Man | December 14, 2007 12:55 PM

Better question: Why Isn't Bloomberg Running? Yes, he's an enormous long shot, but he's our best bet for a turn-around on climate policy with the big-business vision to do it right:

http://solveclimate.com/profile/michael-bloomberg

Posted by SolveClimate | December 14, 2007 1:01 PM

Gore would have easily been the best President in decades.

You could be right but it is interesting to imagine the 2007 blogosphere covering the 2000 campaign. Bradley would probably get overwhelming netroots support while Gore would be attacked as too corporate, too moderate, too Clintonian, too wishy-washy etc. He would be considered the worst of DLC centrists leading a pack that included the Governor of VT and the junior Senator from NC.

Posted by apm | December 14, 2007 1:03 PM

Gore couldn't even carry his homestate of Tennessee. They know him well there & the big fracas over Florida would never have taken place had Al won TN & Arkansas.

Posted by daveinboca | December 14, 2007 1:10 PM

Gore isn't a good enough liar to get elected.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 14, 2007 1:45 PM

Before someone complains that Gore was a good enough liar to get elected, I'll add a great Michael Jordan quote for all you basketball fans: "To win road games, you have to play above the officiating".

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 14, 2007 1:53 PM

Sigh... no Democrat is going to carry Tennessee for the foreseeable future. Clinton-Gore barely did in 1996, even increasing their efforts here, and that was both pre-Monica and before Faux News was properly established as the asylum of choice for the knuckle-dragging population. The South, including TN, is the last bastion of the GOP, and it's likely going to be the most politically recalcitrant, backward part of the country for the rest of my life at least. Maybe the border states can be peeled off eventually, but there simply aren't enough reliable Dems in the cities here (even in Nashville & Memphis, the Dem can't always win by double digits) to outweigh the rural population when it comes to the electoral college, although DINOs can do pretty well in state & local races.

Posted by latts | December 14, 2007 1:53 PM

The Democrats are lucky Gore isn't running. Everyone loves him now, but if he were running for office a combination of gross exaggerations of the costs of all his environmental plans by the Republicans (and probably by the Clinton campaign before that) and the truth about the cost of those plans (which the public simply will not accept, notwithstanding their general concern for global warming) would doom his candidacy and badly hurt down-ballot candidates.

Posted by PaleFire | December 14, 2007 2:18 PM

Andruw:

You do realize the reason you and others think he is not "cut out for mass market politics" is because of the "Kool Kids antics", right?

No, obviously, since I brought them up in the first place. I saw what the Kool Kids were doing, and I also saw a candidate struggling with issues that a natural politician would have figured out decades before.

Given the amount of elections he has won--including 2000, if getting the most votes is the standard you use, despite the Kool Kids and an incumbent president who had been impeached--I'd say his political skills are the equal or better of anyone running.

Given all that he had going for him, he should have been able to do much more than just scrape a win. Clinton would have won in a landslide, if he could have run; all Gore had to do was campaign on "four more years".

And please don't give me Obama, come back to that when he has won something besides a state senate seat and a triumph over Alan Keyes.

Obama's unproven, Gore's disproven.

Posted by rmd | December 14, 2007 2:19 PM

"Given all that he had going for him, he should have been able to do much more than just scrape a win. Clinton would have won in a landslide, if he could have run; all Gore had to do was campaign on "four more years"."

I've heard this a million times, and I wonder if anyone who says this has ever actually looked at presidential election results over the past 40 years (10 elections).

Hint: No Democrat has gone over 50 percent once.

Posted by Andruw | December 14, 2007 2:44 PM

One more comment: "Given all he had going for him..." is also a precious notion given that the main thing he had "going for him" in 2000 was an endless 20-month Beltway press jihad against him that had half the country thinking he was a dishonest liar and Bush a truthful and authentic man of the people.

Posted by Andruw | December 14, 2007 3:02 PM

I thought it very important that Gore run when it looked like war supporters like Clinton or Edwards might win.

But if Obama's going to win, he should just endorse Obama and stay out.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 14, 2007 3:02 PM

"I've heard this a million times, and I wonder if anyone who says this has ever actually looked at presidential election results over the past 40 years (10 elections).

Hint: No Democrat has gone over 50 percent once."-Posted by Andruw

Carter took 40,831,881 of 81,531,584 votes, ~50.1%, not that it really matters.

Posted by Njorl | December 14, 2007 3:52 PM

I wondered if I should have indicated I was rounding!

Posted by Andruw | December 14, 2007 4:02 PM

Andruw:

. . . the main thing he had "going for him" in 2000 was an endless 20-month Beltway press jihad against him that had half the country thinking he was a dishonest liar and Bush a truthful and authentic man of the people

Can we agree that he did have that going against him? Can we also agree that going for him, he was the anointed successor of the U.S. president with the highest end-of-tenure approval rating on record?

over the past 40 years . . . No Democrat has gone over 50 percent once.

And yet Clinton won in a landslide twice. All your statistic proves is that for various reasons (third party candidates, Electoral College mechanics) you don't always need 50 per cent to win in a landslide.

Posted by rmd | December 14, 2007 4:21 PM

I'm wondering if we're now encountering the real post-Civil Rights, post-"Southern Strategy" stage of presidential elections. Seems to me like a lot of trends based on that history may change.

Posted by El Cid | December 14, 2007 4:23 PM

Gore for VP.

Posted by yoyo | December 14, 2007 5:01 PM

Gore for VP is a terrible insult to that man. He's been there, done that, and why he would want to take orders from any of the people running for president right now is beyond me. They certainly haven't earned the right to tell Al Gore what to do.

Is there anyone who's been VP for more than one president?

He doesn't owe it to America or the Democrats to lower himself to that job. It's either the top of the heap or nothing in the political sphere for him. Isn't that obvious? He already said that if he were to come back to politics, it would be to run for president...not VP.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | December 14, 2007 5:28 PM

Funny, when it comes to Gore, you NEVER hear the rediculous inane argument that people advance against Hillary - to-wit:

"If Gore is on the ticket in 2008 and wins and runs again in 2012, that means that there will have been a Bush or a Gore on a ticket in every election for 40 years - we don't want dynasties in America." Funny how this is held against Hillary but never brought up when it comes to Bush or Gore.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 14, 2007 7:30 PM

Gore for Energy Secretary, setting policy.

Posted by Kiril | December 14, 2007 7:55 PM

That weird comment about Gore's duty to run reveals what is wrong with politics in the U.S at the moment. The political should not be monopolized by the two parties, much less by the Congress and White House. Up until civil rights organizations and unions started to come unglued in the seventies, it was clear that countervailing political pressure outside the party system and outside the official state was an essential part of keeping democracy alive in this country. Unfortunately, unions and civil rights organizations did come unglued - while corporations and churches, the other players outside the party-state system, just grew stronger. At this point, the Democratic party professionals and those close to them has an interest in absorbing all progressive political activity into itself, while of course being oriented to mere self aggrandizement - thus the progressive rhetoric and the conservative policy making. The props of the Republican party, on the other hand, have many other things to do - make money, save souls, make money - which gives them a stability that allows them to spread the culture of conservatism quite independently from the fortunes of the Republican party. Until there is a resurgence of independence from the Democrats, until Gore or people like him build up independent civil organizations, liberals are going to get screwed, since their only political option is to go with the Democratic party, and the Democratic party is run by a right-center coalition. Which means, in effect, that the 20 percent of the country that is liberal has no real voice in how things are run - which is why, sooner or later, the political trajectory of your average liberal is into greater and greater apathy. The great symbol of this is the Iraq war: the Dem leadership either wants to continue it in a subdued, out of the headlines way, or is willing to trade opposition to it for advancing almost any other issue. Their actions could not be better designed to disorganize and render apathetic any anti-war movement.

Posted by roger | December 14, 2007 8:13 PM

Gore will make a thousand times more as a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins than he would as president; that's why he's going to Kleiner Perkins.

He may actually believe the global warming alarmism he spouts (perhaps not the case with Vinod Khosla, another VC looking to cash in on government environmental regulations), but at this point he is driven more by cash than ideology. Follow the money. It's that simple.

Posted by Fred | December 14, 2007 8:36 PM

Roger wins the thread....

Posted by metalpetic | December 14, 2007 8:41 PM

Maybe Gore will fulfill his duty to run for president when our career liberal writers (I'm looking at you, Drum, Josh, et al) fulfill their duty to push back against the main stream press' trivialization and mockery of every Dem candidate that pokes their head up.

Right now, it would be a suicide mission.

For God sake, we can't even push back when a freakin' war hero is charicatured as a war criminal!

Get to work!

Posted by Chuck | December 15, 2007 8:23 AM

Matt, I assume you've read Bob Somerby over the years. Gore would have to be insane to go though that again, especially as even our liberal press members (and I mean actual liberal, not "liberal") will fall down on the job of calling bullshit on their employers or on their potential future employers. Frankly, until our press has been held accountable and heads roll, I'm surprised any Democrat of intelligence and good conscience would ever want to run for president again.

Posted by MikeR | December 15, 2007 11:01 PM