Gore, More Than Before

I almost called this post "The Last Temptation of Barack Obama," but that would have been slightly deceptive. In this case, the Temptation is not Obama's but my own. Does one drain the chalice and support Obama for no reason other than the rapture he has inspired? And more broadly, is the Left as a whole compelled to get on the Obama train before they're left behind?

You'd have to be a fool to deny the possibility but I have a feeling we'll all be there to meet the Obama train when it pulls in at the station in Denver this August, and with the prospect of a deadlocked Democratic Convention before us.

When Bill Clinton called Obama's candidacy "the biggest fairytale" he's "ever seen," he was mistaken. Obama's candidacy is the second biggest fairytale we've ever seen. The biggest fairytale is the true story of every horned and spiky thing that has ever spewed out of Bill Clinton's triangulatin', prevaricatin' mouth.

Like it or not, everything in Hillary's candidacy proceeds from Bill's legacy of lies, betrayals, and corporate whoredom. Hillary is good on the issues, but her chief campaign and media consultant is the PR guy for Blackwater. Hillary would support campaign finance reform and a ban on lobbying but if she did, how could she raise the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to get her elected so she could do all the wonderful things she's always dreamed of doing for us.

Hillary still invokes her days working at the Children's Defense Fund under Marion Wright Edelman, but Edelman cut off the Clintons when Bill went after kids on welfare in 1996, to please his new Republican friends in the House.

Hillary now cries when reminded of her youthful idealism working at the Child Study Center in New Haven, but I don't think she's crying wistfully about the road not taken; rather, she's crying about the compromises she's had to make along the highway to power. Hillary and Bill would say that they had to make those compromises "to maintain their viability in the system," that they made those compromises for us.

The rest of us might say, of course, who asked them? The Clinton's live in a cocoon of self-deception and though I'm sure they regard themselves as "good people," when Bill and Hillary walk through a room there is a faint whiff of sulfur in their wake.

From a Democratic Party perspective though, the biggest problem with Hillary is not so much that she's in league with the forces of darkness as that she can't beat John McCain. The reason she can't, is because Republicans won't vote for her, most Independents won't vote for her, and people like me won't vote for her.

Basta! We've had enough.

Obama can beat McCain, and will if given the chance. The prospect of beating Hillary and McCain should be enough to get everyone on board the Obama train.

Personally, though, I am ambivalent. The Obama campaign has been brilliantly executed, a true phenomenon. Obama is a genuinely charismatic guy. The Obama people have out organized the Clinton and Edwards people on the ground, and their candidate is a seamless fit with his message. But what is this campaign actually about?

It's about "change" they tell us.

Still, when Obama says "we've got to go forward, and not go back," I wonder how this would sound if there weren't ten thousand people screaming in approval. We're told that Obama's campaign is different, singular even. However much of Obama's message is vaguely reminiscent of Jimmy Carter, or the first Bill Clinton campaign, and like Clinton and Carter, Obama is coming at his Democratic primary opponent from both the Right and the Left simultaneously.

The one difference, and the telling difference between these campaigns, is that Obama IS the change that everyone else has talked about up until now. We know this because Obama tells us so, and one assumes he genuinely believes it. Obama is a black person who doesn't scare white people, but embraces them. When he talks about a new era of unity, he believes that too and so might we all.

It follows though, that the difference with Obama's campaign, is that it's more a belief thing than a political thing; a messianic thing even, and with ten thousand people screaming, "Yes, he's the One," who am I--or you--to say no?

So, let me just say it. No, I don't feel like playing the fool for Barack Obama.

I've been a John Edwards supporter this election, but now it's time for Gore, more than before.

Al Gore has many things to recommend him. As opposed to Hillary, he actually is quite experienced. Hillary's supposed 35 years of experience consists of exactly seven years of elective office.

As opposed to Obama, Gore really is a candidate of systemic change, and he's got the Nobel Prize to prove it.

Gore has been writing and talking about the slide of the culture into a televised, corporate consumptionist abyss, and the dangers this poses to a democratic
republic.

Gore was among the earliest and most vocal to attack Bush and Cheney on the illegal, immoral recklessness of going into Iraq, and he's been on them ever since.

Gore is not only the best Democratic candidate who could be put up at this point, he might end up being the only alternative at a deadlocked convention.

A Gore-Obama ticket would be a winning Democratic combination -- for a change -- in November.

In part 2 of this post, I'll discuss ideas, tactics and strategies -- crackpot and otherwise -- for making this happen.

Comments

[ulmew]

seriously? what, you imagine in a deadlocked convention, based perhaps on Gore's sudden appearance in the Intrade lines slightly above Edwards, that after a few ballots where nobody gets a majority freed delegates overwhelmingly draft Gore? It is absurd. An Obama/Gore ticket, on the other hand, given that Edwards ruled himself out when he dropped out of the race, is not the worst idea in the world. I would, in fact, say that no better VP candidate comes to mind than Gore. Obama/Gore 2008! Why the hell not?

[Nutcase]

If Gore is less than interested in running for President, how can you believe he, a supremely experienced person, would accept VP to a supremely inexperienced candidate. By the way, he's already served as VP for 8 years and grown way beyond playing second fiddle to anyone.

cognito ergo populistae

[flatus]

McCain gets elected? Well, sure, I suppose it's a possibility. After all, Bush proved in 2004 that you can indeed 'fool some of the people all of the time'.

[AsaNisMasa]

its a pipe dream. stop teasing.

[Nutcase]

Have Dean get together with the candidates. Get them to agree that the super delegates will stay out of the voting for 2,3 or 4 rounds. There will not be enough delegates changing to give either the majority. Then have the super delegates go for Gore. Most of the pledged delegates will support him. Edwards doesn't want the VP job and would refuse it, for anyone other than Gore. Get the unions to unite for such a plan. This would help bring in more down-ticket candidates than any other combination. It would be a brokered convention but the only acceptable one. By allowing Clinton and Obama 2-4 chances at attaining a majority, they would have no real basis for complaint. Putting either on the ticket with Gore would alienate a sizeable segment of the party. Gore/Edwards.

cognito ergo populistae

[MPeter]

No, I do not agree. Gore was effectively undermined by the Clintons and then beaten by the Bush-Rove Machine. Obama already has the Clinton Machine on the ropes. If he can beat the Clintons, he can beat anyone on the Republican side. You can say all the good things about Gore today but the truth is that he either did not have the bile to take the fight to the end, or he was defeated, pure and simple. The Republicans have already put him through the wringer, helped on by Democrats who did not help him when he needed help--the type that called him boring or wooden. Much as I respect him, Gore is not the future. After being out of politics for that long, he would not know what hit him. He would be smarter to hang on to his Nobel winner status.

[itmaybetoolate]

Gore wasn't beaten by bushie. The supreme court intervened inappropriately in a presidential election and gave the presidency to bush because it would 'do irreparable" damage to bushie if he didn't get the win. That was the legal basis for their decision. We CANNOT rewrite history - we have to say it each time. bushie DID NOT beat Gore. He was given the presidency by the SOTUS. There was no nationally elected president from 2000-2004.

[ckemp]

That's Obama-Gore, and without tactics, crackpot or otherwise. What looks like sacrifice is service, from a sufficiently exalted perspective, like Gore's now. It's the one unbeatable ticket, and it's got to be very interesting to be the person who knows he can cause it to happen. Very interesting.

[itmaybetoolate]

From your lips to god's ear! I have never understood the fervor for Obama - he sounds like a politician to me - a politician who is a good orator - but a politician all the same. He is NO JFK, MLK, or RFK but he is better than Clinton. And his candidacy does represent a cultural shift, but this does not a presidency make. His stance on bipartisan governing leaves my uncomfortable. Really, we need someone who will kick ass, take names, and THEN start rebuilding bipartisan consensus. I want someone who will do a thorough investigation of the traitors in the white house and make them pay for their actions. I don't think that is Obama or Clinton.

Oh the dream - Gore leading us to victory!

[flatus]

I see no need for a "bipartisan consensus".
They have treated us like red-headed step children since 1984 and now it's time to return the favor.

[itmaybetoolate]

Exactly!

[larry278]

How about an Al Gore-Mike Bloomberg ticket or a Hillary Clinton-Ralph Nader ticket? Wesley Clark could also be paired with a 3rd party candidate for POTUS. No, you can't rule out a dead locked Denver convention drafting Al Gore. Some of us that a Democratic ticket headed by a woman or a black man is progress for the Democratic Party & the USA. We romantics &/or idealists are a burden. But the Democratic Party is the party of JFK, our 1st RC, POTUS & FDR, who never was photographed using a wheel chair or allowed such a photo to appear in print while he was alive but, was disabled. The Democrats have been spared a Warren G Harding or a Richard M Nixon-so far.
It is a proud heratige. The Democrats have managed to cull out the real rotters before they are considered to head the ticket. That could be blind luck or good karma. But it looks good in the history books.

[ahania]

I like Gore and would have loved for him to run this time but it's too late now. After all that Clinton and Obama and their supporters have sunk into this campaign it would feel like a cheat to many, no matter how beloved he is.

I have to say though, I amused by how disdainful so many Dems seem to be of Obama's charisma. It seems somewhat perverse when both remaining candidates have almost identical policies, particularly when you consider what a huge factor 'likeability' is in the presidential race. The last Dem candidate with charisma was guess who? Bill Clinton, and he's also the last one that actually, y'know, won.

[gailwinds]

I've been supporting Gore for 08 since before the campaign started. I still have a RE-ELECT GORE IN 08 bumper sticker on my car. I am going to post this article over at my fav Gore blog site and please let me know how Gore might actually get into this race. I have to say, this has been quite an interesting race for both parties thus far and I do see trouble ahead as Obama and Hillary go dead locked without sufficient delegates into the primary. Keep me posted