The Gore Factor

Let us assume for a moment that the Democratic convention commences in August without a presumptive nominee. (Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama appear likely to throw in the towel before the convention, no matter what happens on May 6, and it also seems increasingly likely that the candidates will be effectively locked in a stalemate, notwithstanding Obama's almost inevitable lead in pledged delegates and probable lead in the popular vote.) If no nominee is selected on the first ballot, the convention will become a brokered one, and (obviously) it is at this point impossible to guess who will emerge victorious on any subsequent ballot.

But imagine this: what if Barack Obama, if unsuccessful on the first ballot, rather than continue to fight for the nomination, meets with Al Gore, yes Gore, and tells him that he would willingly throw his support behind a 'Draft Gore' campaign, and become his vice-presidential running mate. One cannot imagine a scenario under which, with Obama's and his supporters' (and delegates') support, Al Gore would not become the nominee on the second or a subsequent ballot, even accounting for a last-minute furious fight by a Clinton campaign known for its fury.

Admittedly, Al Gore has often publicly said he is no longer interested in the presidency, that he is well over the disappointment of not attaining it, and that he can do better work (on the environment and global warming) as a private citizen. And he has said those things with all sincerity. But it is relatively easy to make those comments and believe them when the presidency is an abstract notion, and when the idea of entering the grueling fray of a long winter of primary politics is a singularly unattractive one to a retired politician. But one cannot underestimate the effect, sitting in the convention hall in Denver and watching the future of his party, and potentially his country, being decided and his being offered, on the proverbial silver platter, the opportunity to likely become the forty-third president of the United States a mere two-and-a-half months later, can have. (And who really believes that as president of the United States he cannot do more for his cause than he can as a tireless, and admittedly often effective, private citizen?) As the saying goes, "show me the money," and such a scenario would surely have to figuratively count for a lot of cash. Nobel prize winner, Oscar-winner Albert Gore would have to possess an unusually small or suppressed ego, something neither he nor any other politician is known for, to refuse the proposition.

But why, one might ask, would Obama make such a suggestion in the first place? Well, why shouldn't he? He is, and would be, understandably reluctant to become the Clinton running mate, a rival he will have arguably beaten; he would understandably be reluctant to become the running mate of a rival whose husband was himself a two-term, and highly popular, president, and he would be understandably reluctant to become the running mate of someone whose campaign at least, if not always herself and her spouse, has engaged in rather vituperative, malicious, and even vulgar attacks on him and his character. But the running mate of the granddaddy (now that Bill can really no longer be considered that) of his party? Barack Obama knows full well that if he cannot become president in 2008, matched with the right candidate (and assuming a good eight years), he will likely become president in 2016. When he is still in his fifties. He also knows that even were he to prevail at a brokered convention, he will be in a tough fight against John McCain, not least because as we have recently re-discovered, race cannot not be factor in these United States, certainly not in 2008.

I have been, and am still, an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama for President of the United States. I believe that an Obama presidency will be enormously beneficial for the country and will have the potential to revolutionize our foreign policy, to the great advantage of the U.S. and the rest of the world. I am still hopeful, indeed optimistic, that he will become the nominee of the party, and believe he should. But if that is not to be, Obama might do almost as much good as the Vice President, at least in a Gore administration.

A Gore/Obama Democratic ticket would be a hard one to beat by any Republican, let alone the seventy-one year old John McCain, who can hardly be considered one of the more formidable Republican nominees in recent history. Dream ticket? It's this, not Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. Al Gore and Barack Obama, if they were to seriously consider running together, would be the saviors of what soon will be a fractured Democratic party, and would virtually ensure a Democratic White House in 2009. And as my friend Glenn O'Brien, copywriter extraordinaire, pointed out last year (well before it was clear that Gore would not be running) a Gore campaign would have the ultimate campaign slogan, one that Obama, (even) Clinton, their supporters, and many independents couldn't help but happily endorse: "Re-elect Gore 2008."

Comments

[timothe]

Operation Chaos supports the Doomsday option of nominating a 3rd candidate for president at the convention. It is obvious that neither Obama nor Clinton can beat McCain in the general election despite an overwhelming desire of most Americans to vote Democrat. Somehow, the party has propped the two weakest candidates.

Oh, and when you choose a 3rd candidate, make sure it is someone that can pick up independents. The far left loonies won't be able to win either. Gore should have a chance....­Kucinich? Not so much.

[sandiaview]

Of course any Democrat beats the senile one who will keep the killing of U.S. Service people going for a 100 years in return for being President. Is all that blood on his hands worth that. Think of the fatherless and motherless children and those that were never born because of this war. Think of the shattered lives of family and friends (American and Iraqi). Think of the destruction to our reputation around the World, our economy and to our future. Think of the terrorists that we are creating that have not yet been born. But most of all think of the dead and maimed young men and women who trusted us to only tell the truth when sending them into war. This my friend was not only a failure most of all by the Administration, the neo-cons and the media but also by the people of the U.S. for not standing up for what we know is right.

[ddharder]

This is just sooo stupid. First, it feeds on the idea that the contest is still a contest when in reality that yarn is just a Clinton fantasy and a media myth. Secondly it assumes that somehow Gore the bore is more electable in the general election than O, who has shown an astounding abundance of charisma not seen in a politician of this level since Clinton I ran the first time; probably surpassing that.

This electability question that keeps getting thrown around is an issue for anyone running against the new neo con oppositional reality. They own the MSM and are going to swift boat any candidate that comes up against them.

[MouthFountain]

Agreed. Obama has won. Pretty simple. 291 to go.

Although my ideal ticket is/was Gore/Obama, that is not the way it turned out. I only wish that Gore would openly support Obama.

[kroses98]

For years, I wanted Gore to run, but he didn't. I even purchased 6 "Re-Elect Gore in '08" buttons. But, that was before I discovered Barack Obama! Now, I don't want Gore to run! I believe that Obama is a much better candidate than Al Gore. I still like Gore, but Barack Obama is the ONE for me in 2008! GO OBAMA!!!

[AdLib]

For a guest blogger, you show an alarming ignorance of democracy and the true state of the race.

Democracy is about the voice of the people speaking. Anointing someone, as much as I like Gore, in direct denial of democracy to the millions of people who voted would be an outrage and an affront to any who truly respect democracy.

The winner of a primary is the one who gains the most delegates, that is how it has been for many years, since the elimination of the smoke filled rooms. With democracy already so under attack, you support further erosion of it?

And the way you turn Obama's lead in most delegates, states won and popular vote into an irrelevant trivia (in parenthesis like this), is insulting.

Lastly, you are ill-informed as to the true state of the race, the SDs continue to flock to Obama in a majority, he only needs 30% of the remaining undeclared delegates along with a minor share of delegates from the remaining primaries. The leaders of the DNC have made clear this will be resolved in June, that SDs will declare by then.

Yet you seem oblivious to all of this. And Democracy. Not the best traits for writing political columns.

[fastcat]

1924. Democratic National Convention. 110 ballots. Neither of the two frontrunners was nominated. Calvin Coolidge received the nod and won the White House.

The Democratic Party is an organization. They set the rules for choosing who will represent their organization. If the members of the organization decide that the person LEADING is not electable, the members of the organization have the authority to choose someone else. This is party politics.

One can win a primary but not receive the most delegates. Take Texas for example. The delegates are awarded to districts based on the loyalty of the members. The black community had more delegates than the hispanic community because the black community has a better track record in voting for the democratic candidates. Hillary won Texas but Obama walked away with more delegates.

I agree that Senator Obama is LEADING but he has not yet won the nomination. Unless he has wrapped it up, there will be no winner until the convention. The delegates have the authority, at this point, to do whatever they choose. May not like it but that is the rules of the democratic party.

[MrsGreebers]

I would say Hillary did not win Texas. Obama did. Because delegates are what count in this nominating procedure. Hillary won the popular vote, not "Texas."

[MrsGreebers]

What on earth are you talking about? This is about the means by which a PRIVATE CORPORATION (i.e. a political party) nominates a candidate for president. Anyone can run for president if they can gain enough financial support to get on the ballots of enough states, whether they belong to a party or not. (Granted, it's pretty difficult to break the monopoly of the two major parties at the national level, but that's another topic, but look at the sitting CT Senator, Lieberman. He lost his party's nomination but won the statewide vote as an independen­t.) Voters then look at the nominees and either select one of them or write in someone. But parties are free to make up whatever nomination rules and procedures they want.

[Fairfloss]

GORE????? Ha ha ha ha hah! HOW DARE HE, HOW DARE HE,....?

[ann1]

NOOOOOOOOOOO

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Like many who have posted here, I have a high regard for Al Gore. I am one of those people who tries hard to keep well informed and I spend my share of hours watching C-Span. In the past 7 years, I have heard Al Gore when asked about the Clinton era trade policies, equivocate and waffle and refuse to admit the failures of those policies. It makes me uncomfortable with him now, in spite of his many fine qualities. So, thanks, but no thanks.

[JXB]

Gore was the most qualified out of all contenders to be president in 2000, and he remains so today. Obviously, Obama will not need to resort to a dramatic maneuver such as this if he is able to secure the nomination himself over Clinton (either at the convention or due to her withdrawal beforehand), but it is an intriguing possibility to consider if he cannot. An Obama/__________ ticket will be very strong, and a Gore/Obama ticket would be overwhelmingly strong.

[HumeSkeptic]

I love Al Gore. But his time has passed, just as the time for Clintons has passed.

This is Obama time.

I look forward to working hard to make him the next President of the United States.

[kroses98]

Gore waited too long, and now his time has passed.

[erykah]

This is so racist until it is not funny. Why should he play second fidel to a man who couldn't even beat someone as dumb as Bush. DonThe DEMS are afraid to run a black man for president. This is the only reason why they stay on the side lines and let Hill detroy the party. Yes, it would be so much safer to run a white man. Give me a break. Al didn't run half the campaign Obama has. Also, Gore did not even win his own home state-Tennessee. He found himself in the same predicamet Hill finds herself in now. You should stop this. Obama is going to be the niminee and he is going to win. Be brave.

[flamingokicker]

Gore DID win in 2000. He just didn't get inaugurated.

[hippynanainblingland]

For those who would like to see the entire article, you could go to democracynow.org, and ask for archives..­. the date is, believe it or not, November 09 2004. The article is well worth reading, I assure you. Good luck.

[julieeiluj]

Nah. Then Gore would have to sink to being just a lowly politician like everyone in this race. He can do more to help us help ourselves and see the error of our disgusting polluting, overpopulating ways so we can actually have a chance at surviving on this planet. Stick him in the deep muck and mire of what is being left behind by the ahole who stole his presidency. That would be the ultimate insult. No, Gore is better off free of politics and hopefully the world will find a way to save itself from itself in the process.

[BillZBubb]

If Obama is half the shrewd politician his supporters think he is, he now knows he cannot win in November. He has as much chance of winning a national race as Hillary has of winning the Democratic nomination. He cannot win Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, or any of the solid red states--even Pennsylvania is in doubt.

Your proposal makes a lot of sense. Would Obama rather lead the Democratic party to sure defeat or sacrifice this opportunity to lead the ticket and back Gore, who would win in a walk? My bet is Obama, like most other politicians, will err on the side of self importance and ego. He'll lead the party to a November setback.

[UCLAdy04]

Why can't Obama win in November? Oh yeah, because he is Black. There is nothing egotistical about working your butt off for the nomination and rightfully winning by every measure and not handing that all to a person who didn't even lift a finger.

[BillZBubb]

Funny. Anyone running for president has a big ego. Obama is no different.

Obama will lose in November for a variety of reasons. The fact that he is an African American is sadly one of them. It's not the way it should be, but it is the way it is. But, that isn't the only reason and it isn't the major reason. If you look at the constituencies he must win to get elected in the pivotal states, he just won't have traction. He only does well with the youth vote and the African American vote--not nearly enough to make a difference. And that is before the Republican slime machine goes after him. If you think the Wright situation is bad, just wait until the Republican OR info hits the airwaves.

[mindact]

the idea that Barack will loose in November is baloney. Have you stopped to think Barack has had the worst month ever and he's statistically tied with john McCain? That shows how weak a candidate McCain is. Also, the maps representing the old maps are obselete. With Obama on the ballot, Illinois, Colorado, Minnessota, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Iowa are all in play. the center of gravity has shifted. Hillary draws the same polarizing map, barack expands the map. Gore is looking sqeaky clean now because he's not gotten in the mud yet.

One more point, the Clintons and republicans couldn't find much on barack so they resorted to playing the guilt by association game....

[abigail1]

I agree with you that Obama will do fine in November, but Illinois hasn't been in play in a presidential election in decades, it is one of the bluest states in the nation. Obama doesn't put Minnesota and Wisconsin in play, he takes them out of play and puts them solidly in the Democratic pile. your argument is right, just the states you cite are wrong. Obama does better than Hillary in states that Kerry and Gore won barely like Wisconsin, Oregon and Minnesota making it so that Democrats do not have to fight as hard for those states. That makes it possible for him to campaign in states that have not been swing states but can be this year like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Montana, and even Texas.
Again, the basis of your argument is right, you just need to sort out your statistics.

[MysticMichael]

Ridiculous. There is plenty of time between now and November for Obama to recover from the bruising that Hillary has inflicted upon him. Six months is an eternity in politics. And I'm betting that virtually all of the core strengths that got him to this position in the first place - i.e. on the verge of eliminating the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton - will still be with him then.

November setback indeed!

[RickO]

Obama is winning. Why should he consider anything less than accepting the nomination himself? Isn't that the point? Clinton has this odd theory that whoever scores late in the game should win, even if they're still behind at the end of the game. Even if she were to win the rest of the primaries (not likely) Obama will still be ahead. It's really his to lose and until that happens, he's winning...­and fairly I might add.

[kroses98]

Clinton makes her "theories" up, as she goes along, to suit her needs!

[MrsGreebers]

The "logic" on Hillary's side is about instilling buyer's remorse. Those who voted for Barack earlier this year were hoodwinked and, given another chance, would now make a different choice based on how we've all found out that he is a Manchurian Candidate, out to hand the country over to Osama bin Laden.

[bwither]

There's no logical reason that- after this protracted primary season and record setting fund raising- Obama should hand over the top of the ticket to someone who did nothing to earn it other than show up..

Obama/Edwards is a good idea, but Edwards has made it clear that he's not interested in the VP position. Same with Biden.

The most likely VP choice will be Hillary, for no other reason than placating those resentful Hillary supporters who swear they would vote for John McCain if Hillary is not the candidate. Other solid options would be Jim Webb and Evan Bayd.

[kroses98]

Absolutely NO Hillary!!! There will be NO Hillary V.P., because his supporters would NOT abide it!!! Edwards would NEVER play "second fiddle" again, and Evan Bayh is an absolute JERK!!!

Senator Jim Webb would be OK!!! He gives the ticket just the "heft" that it needs.

[MrsGreebers]

I like Jim Webb and he is a huge bipartisan asset, having been in a Republican cabinet (Navy sec or something like that under Reagan). But I don't like losing another Senator, and we are guaranteed to be losing one senator already (Hillary or Barack).

[hippynanainblingland]

Cleaning up old stuff from saved articles in my favorites list yesterday, I came across an article about a book by John Perkins, called “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” in which he discusses in detail the shenanigans that, over the last fifty years have been going on in our so called great country, leading to the US having become the most powerful empire in the history of the world, so far.

It seems that the trickery that was perpetrated on the Native population that resulted in their having lost all their lands hasn’t stopped, not even slowed down, and seemingly, every President since WWII, except President Carter, (and we all know what happened to him, don’t we?) has been in the know about this, if not actively participated.

Now we salivate about a Gore/Obama ticket, and though I too drool, it occurs to me that Gore’s way too decent a man to participate in such trickery—don’t get me wrong, I think Obama is too, but at least he’s actually seeking the position, and, presumably, he knows what he’s getting into—and Gore, who also might very possibly know what becoming the President might entail, more likely than not has very, very good reasons for not seeking the position again… such as wanting to live to a ripe old age, doing what he wants to do as a private citizen.

So, while I really would like such a ticket, I highly doubt it will come to pass, alas. Sigh.

[kroses98]

Neither man would accept it, nor do Obama's supporters want or need it!!! It's a ridiculous thought!!!