I’ve heard plenty of talk about voters not being particularly enthralled by any of the nine Dems running for president. There are doubts about likeability (Kerry), electability (Dean), experience (Edwards), and/or leadership skills (Gephardt). Some speculate that these misgivings lead to “undecideds” and “no opinion” ranking so highly in multiple polls.
Does this mean, however, that a lack of enthusiasm for the current crop of candidates could bring back Al Gore for another shot at the presidency?
According to a report in The Hill, a small DC-newspaper widely read by members of Congress and their staffs, “a former Democratic National Committee official close to Gore told The Hill he believes the former vice president may enter the Democratic primary this fall.”
I really doubt this is true. Gore formally announced in December that he was not going to run (for re-election?) in 2004. He didn’t leave himself “wiggle room,” and there were no ambiguities about his intentions.
“I’ve decided that I will not be a candidate for president in 2004,” Gore said on 60 Minutes. “I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign, but I don’t think that it’s the right thing for me to do.”
As near as I can tell, The Hill report was based on one person’s opinion about what may happen. A Gore spokesperson told the paper that there had been no change of plans. The Hill’s source, however, said his “prediction of another Gore campaign is based on more than a hunch.” Hmm.
The article will certainly generate renewed speculation. Should Gore run? Could he win?
While I sincerely doubt Gore will re-enter the race, there would be a significant percentage of the party who believes that Gore deserves another chance. After all, in 2000, Gore won the popular vote, got more votes than any Democrat in American history, and by any reasonable standard, should have received Florida’s electoral votes and been inaugurated as president.
There would be others, meanwhile, who are anxious for a fresh face. Gore, after all, has run for national office four times — including every presidential election since 1988. He ran a lackluster and unimpressive campaign in 2000 and he made several poor decisions during the Florida recount debacle. Gore was also the first candidate in a generation to lose his own home state.
Complicating matters a little, Gore has gone out on some limbs since his last campaign. For example, Gore endorsed “single-payer” health care in the U.S. last November. It was a bold and courageous move, but it was incredibly controversial. The Republicans accused the Clinton plan of being “socialized medicine” in 1994 when it was nothing of the sort. Gore’s new-found support for single-payer would become a lightening rod of controversy should he decide to enter the 2004 race.
So why don’t I think he’s going to run? He’s kept a very low-profile for the last seven months, and people planning on running for president usually do the opposite. While Gore has exited the stage, nine Dem candidates have hired the best political staffers available and lined up support from activists, constituency groups, and lawmakers. If Gore ran, he’d be at an immediate disadvantage.
Could the article in The Hill be a trial balloon to gauge public reaction? Doubtful. If Gore really wanted to test the waters, he’d leak word to a bigger paper where the story would get bigger play. (No offense to my friends at The Hill.)
As for whether Gore should run, I could go either way. I voted for Gore in 2000 and I was proud to have done so. I believe Gore was uniquely qualified to serve as president, perhaps better prepared for the job than any candidate in recent memory. He has vast experience in domestic and foreign policy, he’s smart and knowledgeable, and he’s forward-thinking. He could walk into the White House and not need any on-the-job training. If inaugurated after the last election, I’m confident he’d be running the country a hell of a lot better than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
I’m just not sure if he can win next year. I hated his campaign strategy in 2000, disapproved of his running mate, and found that he gave the media too many opportunities to bury him, which they subsequently did.
If he ran in 2004, there’d be a lot of focus on the past and how this campaign compared to the last one. Regrettably, I don’t think that’s what America needs right now and it’s certainly not a recipe for success for getting Bush out of office.