Gore To The Rescue?

The Superdelegates just might save us.

I'm hoping that they will rescue the Democrats from two candidates with big vulnerabilities and unite Hillaryites, Obamaniacs, and former Edwards supporters like me, behind a candidate who can truly bring us all together.

I'm talking about Al Gore.

Until recently, I didn't think Gore would run or even should run. He's making a huge difference around the world on stopping the climate crisis. And, like most people, I thought one or the other of the candidates would have shown the strength to unite Democrats behind their banner and show that they would lead a transformative presidency.

Unfortunately, neither Hillary nor Obama has yet succeeded on those counts, meaning that it's time to look for someone who can while it's not too late for them to enter the later primaries and earn some modicum of popular legitimacy.

To be sure, both Clinton and Obama have their strengths (and I prefer Obama between the two), but they also have major chinks: while she's a sincere person who will fight hard for progressive change in the White House, I worry about her electability. And while Obama's inspiring and potential game changer, I worry about his priorities: in the past, he's been willing to vote for horrible legislation like Bush's 2005 energy bill in the name of "bringing people together" - showing a disturbing willingness to sacrifice his principles on the altar of abstract theories about politics. To what extent he would actually work for a progressive agenda is a major unknown. Also, why is he behind McCain in the polls despite the generally glowing press coverage and grassroots movement behind him - is there something about him that's turning people off despite all the journalistic gushing?

In contrast, Gore would electrify Democrats hungry for somebody who could bring the positive qualities of each current front-runner together - without their negatives.

Though Gore's rhetorical style is different, it can be as inspiring as Obama's - though with a key difference: Gore has an extraordinary record of achievement to back it up. Not only has he launched the climate crisis onto the world's consciousness, he played a leading role in arms control legislation as far back as the 1970's, marshaled the government behind the technological revolution of the 1990's, led the Reinventing Government initiative that made Washington far more efficient and effective, and recognized early on the threat posed by al-Qaeda.

And though not so long ago no one would have held him up as a model of electability, he has, as he says, "let the glory out" - and unleashed the passionate, inspiring, and accomplished leader within.

And he's got one thing neither Hillary nor Obama do (and I don't mean a Nobel prize): he's a Vietnam veteran with loads of direct national security experience, meaning he'll be able to credibly go toe to toe with McCain on terrorism and other big issues. And, like Obama, he opposed the Iraq War from the start, allowing him to provide a clear contrast with McCain on judgment (unlike Obama, he continued to loudly and consistently oppose the Iraq War even when it was popular).

Like Hillary, he actually favors universal health care. But unlike Hillary, he's had major success navigating legislation through Congress: he played an instrumental role in passing the 1993 economic plan, the crime bill, standing down the Republican government shutdown in 1995 and 1996, and passing much of his Reinventing Government initiative through Congress.

To be sure, Gore isn't perfect: for one, his candidacy wouldn't provide a demographic breakthrough in the presidency. But Gore has shown strength with every demographic group in the past, and has particularly strong support within the African-American community (where he actually got a higher percentage of the vote in 2000 than Bill Clinton had in 1992 or 1996, or John Kerry did in 2004). And he could easily provide a major demographic breakthrough with his vice-presidential nominee.

Finally, he's a person of integrity - and he's achieved success in almost everything he's done in life. Now could be the time for him to bring that winning record to the country.

So is it possible - and is it just? Well, so long as neither Hillary nor Obama gets a majority of pledged delegates, it's certainly possible - delegates would be free to change their choices and select whomever they want. But I also agree with MoveOn and others that it's vital that the nominee have some popular legitimacy and not just the support of insiders. But there's a way to provide that. Gore could allow his name to be entered in a handful of the Democratic primaries and caucuses whose filing deadlines haven't passed (Wyoming, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana). If he shows significant strength in different parts of the country despite all of Hillary and Obama's organizational muscle and momentum, he'll be able to credibly claim popular support - and be able to take his case to undecided Superdelegates. If not, just go back to planet saving (and let the rest of us focus on electing Obama or Hillary).

Of course, this is just an idea right now, and there needs to be some backing for it. You can let Al Gore know what you think here or just leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz

Comments

[Moose49]

As bitter and nasty as this campaign has gotten, the fact is that Obama, especially, but also Clinton, to a lesser extent, have energized the Democratic primary electorate, generated record turnout, and raised record sums of campaign cash among large numbers of people in relatively small contributions. Much as I think Al Gore would make a great president, for the delegates to negate all of this would be a huge mistake.

But we do need Al Gore now -- we need him to come on down from Mt. Olympus and tell Hillary to stop doing John McCain's dirty work for him. Hillary is no more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Barack Obama -- in fact, after she voted for the Iraq war without even bothering to read the NIE, there's a strong case to make that she's less qualified.

We need Al Gore's intervention because the only people who are benefiting are the Republicans, who ought to lose this election in a landslide. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh crow:

"Look, half the country already hates Hillary. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically."

Come on, Al. You know Hillary's weaknesses better than anybody. You have a better perspective on her qualifications for president than anybody. You don't have to endorse Obama, just tell her to STFU when it comes to claiming that John McCain is better suited to be president than Obama.

[runswithscissors]

You think the right-wingers go rough on Hillary? Wait until the flat-earthers have ten minutes of airtime to slam Al Gore. It'll make "He thinks he invented the internet" seem like a compliment. They'll sell his environmental policies as a way to drive up taxes,and in this greed driven country that's a sure way to lose.

[SaltySaltillo]

runswithscissors,

I think you tripped and poked your memory lobes with those scissors...

Do you not remember that Al Gore ran for president in 2000 against a Geoge W. Bush that we didn't know was a crazy idiot and already had the Repubilcan vetting machine run on him, with little damage?

(1) Al Gore is, in the American imagination, a giant of a man (literally and in reputation) compared to who he was in 2000 when he almost became president; and (2) he has already been 'vetted".

[itmaybetoolate]

Run, VP Gore! Pleeeeeeese run!!!!!! Answer the call of history!!

[DavidK08]

Gore needs only to pick a side. Super Delegates will follow him and influence her to leave the race.

[klondiker]

As much as I love Al Gore, this is a completely ridiculous, undemocratic idea. So far, nearly 24 million primary voters have cast their votes in favour of either Clinton or Obama. You can't just run rough-shod over them and nominate someone else.

[goodsnservices]

You're joking, right? With all the complaints that neither of the candidates will be able to get the nomination without "backroom" superdelegate support fueling cries of anti-democracy, how do you think people would react if Gore just waltzed onto the stage at this late date and declared himself our Nominee?

Even if he could pull out huge wins from now to the convention, he would trail so far behind the other two in delagate votes that it would be tragic. Add to that the obvious effect that even a modest showing would pull delegates away from the two contenders who have stuck it out through all the tough slogging while Gore sat on his laurels.

No, Gore had his chance to enter this race and he blew it. His time is gone.

[itmaybetoolate]

Look, Obama and Hillary are are second tier candidates. Gore is our first tier - but we haven't had the option to cast a primary vote for him!

[Basho]

You can't be serious. I like Al Gore fine for the work he has done on behalf of the environment, but come on, he had his chance and he blew it. You expect him to waltz in at this late date and take the nomination. Obama and Clinton supporters will fire on him from both sides. Is Harrison Ford cast for the movie role of this script? I find the Chronicles of Narnia more realistic. The real stretch is how 'Gore can be as inspiring as Obama'. Come on, Gore makes mere tedium seem appealing.

[SaltySaltillo]

The notion that people don't get a second chance to run for president is silly... look to history before you let your foolish fingers touch the keyboard. Gore didn't "blow it" - he had a guilt-by-association problem coming off of Clinton's slimy presidency (which shouldn't be a factor this time around since American amnesia has clearly already done its work in the voter's memories) and the American public had not yet recognized that George W. Bush was a village idiot 1/5 the man his father was. Times have changed, however, and I wonder if Gore could make a candidacy that appeals to more than 271 electoral votes in the fall.

[MaJoad]

After Obama, the Dukakises, McGoverns, Mondales, Gores, Kerrys, and Hillaries are bland, boring, personalities who will not capture the spirit of the young or of the future.
The issues are the same.
War ,Economy. Global Warming, Civl Liberties.
Why have a figure head we can't follow with excitement?
Why must the nerds of the world spoil the hope and dreams of young America?
This old lady wants to follow a leader with charisma. And so do the young voters of Americsa. It is THEIR future.

[itmaybetoolate]

Give me bland and boring if it also happens to be a person who has stood up for the Constitution. Neither Hillary or Obama have done that, and, in the end, that is ALL that matters.

[SaltySaltillo]

huh? Obama has not stood up for the Constitution? Do your homework.

[howdydostu]

Al Gore has been painted by the smear machine as stiff and wooden. It may have stuck at a time when American's wanted a president they could "belly up to the bar" and have a few beers with.
Those days are gone and younger people are yearning for progressive leadership, a visionary for the future. Please read Al Gore's "An Assault on Reason". Go to his website called "Currant TV"
The future is exciting again for young people as the great work of Al Gore has been specifically created for them. He is giving our youth the tools they need to restore democracy through the use of the internet....its interactive, its fresh, and it plays very well with America's young people.
Check it out!!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142