Gore a bore no more?

The blogosphere was surprisingly abuzz yesterday with positive talk about Al Gore. Wittmann, Yglesias, Atrios, and Ezra — not all of whom, I might add, agree on everything — all had very positive things to say about the former Vice President, even in a 2008 context.

Ezra, who’s been on board with Gore for a long while, welcomed the newcomers to the party.

Gore, if anything, starts in a better position than Hillary. Already defined as a credible candidate, there’s nothing Republicans can do that’ll make him look unfit to lead (the country, indeed, already voted for him once). If he can keep his recent speaking style, boring won’t apply, at least not so much. His credibility with the left-wing of the party is massive and real. Unlike Hillary, who inspires a fair amount of distrust, Gore’s endorsement of Dean and his alliance with MoveOn have turned the ultimate establishment candidate into something of a left-wing insurgent. That should make him a fierce online fundraiser, with small donor rolls that’ll dwarf even Dean’s, a particularly important strength since that great sucking sound you’ve been hearing is Hillary hoovering all the early money.

Gore was perhaps better prepared for the presidency than any candidate in recent memory. He ran a poor campaign, jumping the shark when he announced his running mate, and handled the recount fiasco poorly. Gore, alas, would have made a better president than he did presidential candidate.

But it’s been interesting to see Gore since then. One of the problems during the 2000 race was Gore’s apparent concern to gamble on anything. He was overly cautious, seemingly walking on egg shells for a full year.

And yet, if you’ve seen Gore in the last year, you’ve seen a man who, once unencumbered by campaign concerns, is a progressive hero.

In November 2002, at the time still mulling another presidential campaign, Gore announced his support for a national single-payer health care system. He is, to my knowledge, the only mainstream national political figure in the country to do so.

After announcing he would not run in 2004, Gore really threw caution to the wind. In January, he teamed up with MoveOn for a blistering speech attacking the Bush administration’s environmental policies. A month later, Gore delivered a keynote address at the New School in New York on the “political uses and abuses” of fear. It was, not incidentally, one of the best speeches I’ve heard in quite a while.

A few months later, Gore was in Idaho for a speech to the state party.

His Boise speech offered vintage examples of his ramped-up rhetoric. “The right wing … has now intimidated the formerly moderate Republicans,” Gore told the crowd. “The right wing has taken over the Republican Party…. In order to win their victories, the right wing relies on the politics of fear … and the repetition of big lies.”

Around the same time, Gore packed a Nashville hotel ballroom and had a crowd on its feet when he shouted, “The truth shall rise again!”

This Al Gore was not the same Al Gore who picked Joe Lieberman to be his running mate and who chaired the DLC in the ’80s. This is a Gore of passion and progressive vision.

Is Gore going to run in 2008? No. Could we do a lot worse? You better believe it.

Hey, why not Gore? He’s already won a Presidential election.

  • In any disucssion of Gore and his campaign in 200, one has to discuss the press and how the smeared him from one end of the country to the other. Even so-called liberal pundits, made things up or repeated factually inaccurate stories created by the mainstream press or the RNC.

  • I agree about the press trashing Gore, but much of the explanation/blame still rests with him. He listened to too many advisors (losers), relied too much on focus groups and private polls, seemed afraid to be either his charming, witty, passionate, progressive or even intelligent self. If he had shown us just a bit more of the fire that now appears to be in his belly (and which was definitely there before he became VP), he would’ve won, Bush would be drunk in Crawford, and we wouldn’t be … well, back to reality. I’d support “the sadder but wiser” Gore any time. Provided no one from the 2000 or 2004 campaigns returns from the dead to wreck it for us once again.

  • I have no problem with Gore. I’ve always
    admired him. But I’m a strong believer in
    the charisma factor in presidential elections.
    I am certain millions vote for the candidate
    that they like better personally.

    Gore’s legendary “wooden” personality is
    a real detriment to his electability. His
    attempts to improve his image in that
    regard have been comical at best, and
    sometimes grotesque. I have read that
    this man, one-on-one, is one of the most congenial,
    interesting and down to earth guys you could
    want to know. If so, he needs to find some
    way of projecting that persona.

    He should have clobbered Bush. I’m convinced
    it was Bush’s phony folksiness that got him
    (very nearly) elected, and appointed
    president.

    On that score, the Gore that ran in 2000 could
    whip Frist, but he’d lose to McCain.

  • On the media factor, I wonder if maybe the terrible press treatment of Gore in 2000 would actually help him this time. Is it too much to hope that many of the mediots who abused him so badly last time would be careful not to do so again, considering how things have gone in the meantime?

    I didn’t like Gore and didn’t vote for him in 2000. (As a New Yorker, I thought it was safe to vote for Nader.) He’s certainly impressed me since then, however, and I would consider supporting him in the primary campaign next time were he to run again.

  • I think a Gore run would be great to energize the base. Gore was regularly smeared and lied about by the CCCP. Of course, Somerby is all over that, and if enough people were actually to follow the records they would know to what lengths the CCCP have gone to become nothing but Republican lapdogs, nothing but brainless shills. If the left were smart and repeatedly emphasized the way that 1) the press gave the White House to Bush, and 2) Bush has hurt this country, we might be able to both bring down the Repubs and straighten out the press to do their job.

  • The level of success of Karl Rove’s strategy of attacking his opponents’ strengths is shown by the number of Democrats who still view Gore and Kerry negatively. They weren’t perfect, but no political candidate ever is, and both were great people with excellent ideas, solid moral foundations, and very impressive accomplishments.

    I think past Republican smears can be overcome. It’s pretty much axiomatic now that anything said by Bush or his handlers and supporters is more likely than not to be a lie. Moreover, journalists have been made very aware of how they’ve been spun, and about the implications of Bush – Republican policies.

    Gore / Obama would work perfectly for me.

    http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html
    http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml

  • Hey Carpetbagger, why are you predicting that Gore won’t run in 08? I hadn’t heard definitively either way. What have you heard?

  • What have you heard?

    Just this week, the New York Times, in a story about Gore’s new media venture, quoted Gore as saying, “I don’t expect to ever be a candidate again…. I think of myself as a recovering politician, and I’m on about Step 9.”

    One could argue, I suppose, that he said he doesn’t expect to be a candidate, but it sounded pretty definitive to me.

  • A generation from now it will be a commonplace that 12/12/2000 was more of a blow to this country than 9/11/2001.

    The nation still needs to address the theft of the 2000 election, and Gore needs to be part of it.

    Restitution for theft requires restoring the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the person from whom it was stolen, and not a third party.

    It would go a long way towards restoring the republic.

  • I like Gore a lot, but even if his speechifying has improved some lately he still feels a little ‘fifteen minutes ago’, if you get my drift. We need some fresh faces that can really electrify the crowds. For me, it’s Clark/Obama in 2008, all the way. Yeehaw!! 🙂

  • I am all for Gore.
    All.
    For.

    But I caution everyone.
    There are deep undercurrents here.
    Deep.

    To wit:

    1) Gore’s father was hugely responsible for the funding of our Interstates. Arguably, Gore Sr. CREATED our nation’s highways.

    2) Gore’s son was steamrolled by an automobile.
    Totally + totally flattened.

    Al Gore himself is somewhere in between (1) and (2).

    Which is to say Gore has an undercurrent of anti-automobileness in his bones.

    Think about that for a second.

    Once upon a time 60% of America’s jobs were linked to the automobile industry:

    Clothing automobiles.
    Feeding automobiles.
    Creating space for automobiles.
    Healing automobiles.
    Birthing automobiles.
    Insuring automobiles.
    Bathing automobiles.

    (yeah verily…”once upon a time”)

    Couple Gore inbetweeness with the understanding with the fact that Gore is actually smart enough to realize that the future of the planet depends on clean, smart, efficient mass transit.

    Absolutely.
    Depends.
    Yeah verily:
    Absolutely.

    (Side note: Is there ONE Republican in the world that understands this vital fact??? Nyetski.)

    Which is also to say a part of Gore
    Is substantially..
    Substanially…
    Anti-automobile.

    Which means he has seen a vision of the future that is not wholly pro-automobile.

    I’ve always felt that because of that…
    America was not ready for him 2000.
    That was the deep undercurrent that torpedoed him.

    Have things changed enough that America,
    So fervently pro-auto,
    So totally+totally dependent on automobiles…
    Will tolerate his inbetween vision?

    I dunno.
    I dunno.
    But…
    I don’t think so…

    Then again,
    Perhaps after 2 more years of Bush’s Iraq mess…
    Perhaps after 2 more years of painful gasoline prices…
    Perhaps…
    Perhaps…
    But I don’t know…

    [Personal recollection: When I walked Land’s End to John O’ Groats I called in at a youth hostel in Cornwall. The girl in charge was shocked to learn I was an American. She thought all Americans were torsos attached to four wheels. Since then, I too have come to view most Americans as torsos attached to four wheels with one appendage on the sterring wheel and the other pressing a cell phone to the ear. In other words: I dunno. I dunno. But I don’t think so. In short: America is not yet ready for Gore. And I am not sure it ever will be…]

  • Addendum:

    In short:

    We are going to get that fucking oil…
    And we are going to keep driving around like headless raging chickens…

    For as long…
    As absolutely long…
    As we possible can….

  • If Gore doesn’t want to run, he could serve two functions for the party: attack dog on social issues and mentor for the next crop of wannabe nominees. While everyone considered him on the dull side, no one said he wasn’t smart or astute. He could serve a valuable role, as he is now, of fomenting anger against Republican polices.

    One Rove tactic that has worked effectively in a number of elections is to have a rabid party functionary do the dirty work of rolling around in the mud shooting the darts of criticism at the opponent while the candidate stays clean. We need more bare knuckle politics on the Dem side because the public perception of these types of tactics is strength. Being nice and logical translates to being weak. Let’s bloody some noses while pushing forth an agenda that does this nation some good.

  • Carpetbagger said: Gore’s new media venture

    I’m glad that you mentioned this, one of the things that I found interesting about this new venture was that it is aimed at young people. If memory serves me correctly the focus of the media venture is not politics but promoting progressive ideas. It sounds like the seeding of a new generation of rational thinkers, something that we should have been doing a long time ago.

  • Uh, no. Read “The Best Democracy that Money Can Buy” by Greg Palast, then tell me that Al Gore is a progressive and not a bagman for big business. Ken Delay was a big Gore fan and backer. So were Big Parma and Big Oil donors. Gore didn’t effectively challenge Florida, and didn’t support the Congressional Black Caucus in challenging the electoral vote, because his backers told him not to. Gore’s suck up concession speech was one of the most humiliating bend-overs in Dem history. We don’t want you now, Al. Go away and collect the money your conpromises entitle you to pick up from under the table.

  • I think Al Gore would make an outstanding president. But I think he sunk his chances with his SNL appearance a few years ago. That hot tub sketch, which creeped even me out, would make perfect material for a scuttling opposition ad.

  • W Action:

    You can’t look at candidates in a vacuum. The question isn’t whether Gore has been a money-whoring politician in the past. The question is whether there is someone better.

    As Ezra points out, Hillary is “hoovering the early money.” Where do you think that’s coming from? The netroots? Hah!

    The list of Democrats who could enter the ’08 race with any sort of name recognition is rather short:

    Gore
    Hillary
    Clark
    Biden
    Lieberman
    Obama

    The only ones who probably aren’t thoroughly compromised by corporate fundraising are Clark, Obama (becausse he’s still green), and Gore post-2000.

    There are a couple of governors who could be made credible through a successful primary campaign, but none have any existing grassroots support.

    Now, assuming you actually want to WIN in 2008, rather than just watch Michael Moore movies and cry into your tea, who is better than Gore?

  • Obama’s relatively quick and positive entrance into the public awareness is an indication that a new voice can be heard and noticed and welcomed without a lot of existing pre-recognition. His speech at the Democratic Convention shot him right to the top and folks are watching him and asking for more.

    The right message presented by the right person will be listened to. John Edwards isn’t included on space’s list but he had a style and message that was gaining ground when Dean’s scream scared the masses to the Kerry side of the boat which then proceeded to capsize and sink.

    It may not be percieved that a long term Democratic Party identity is a negative at this point, but I’m not sure that familiarity is a positive in it’s own right. The polls are indicating a solid scepticism for current officeholders regardless of party.

  • If you get a chance to watch Clark talk on Fox News, I think you’ll get a glimpse into why Clark can win. Clark is able to reframe a crappy, misleading question and to speak to the real issue without taking the (Fox) bait. Clark can unite America like no other candidates listed above.

    We need a candidate who can energize the middle of the political spectrum, one who is not afraid to ignore the vocal edges. I feel Clark could steal enough moderate Republicans to hopefully force a change in the Republican party.

    Here’s Clark in action.

  • Comments are closed.