Al de Gore?

Faced with intractable opposition to his plans for political reform, Charles de Gaulle retired in 1953 to his Colombey estate, wrote his wartime memoirs, maintained his contacts and awaited the crisis he knew would occur because of the inherent weakness of the Fourth Republic.

In 1958 it happened. Charles de Gaulle held a press conference to let the country know he was "at its disposal" and, just 10 days later, his offer was accepted. He won an election, extricated the country from its Algerian morass, forged the beginnings of a united Europe, righted a declining economy and won a referendum on a new Constitution establishing the Fifth Republic that survives to this day.

After a wretched "loss" in 2000 (consider how many different small matters had to go wrong -- the butterfly ballot, the purging of voting rolls and intimidation of black voters, the presence of Ralph Nader on the ballot, a Supreme Court committing the ultimate right wing activism, a decision specifically stating it was not to be precedent, and so on), Al Gore similarly left politics while maintaining his contacts. He wrote two books, won an Emmy Award, the Nobel Peace Prize, and produced an Oscar-winning film from a serious slide show on global warming.

Like Barack Obama, Gore was right about the Iraq War from the start. Although he patriotically kept silent for awhile about Bush being asleep-at-the-switch prior to 9/11 so the country could rally, he eventually called him out about that first instance of gross negligence and incompetence. When he was Vice President, with a broad national security portfolio (unlike Hillary, he actually HAD security clearance!), they caught the millennium terrorist who planned to blow up the LA Airport.

While many urged, pleaded, cajoled and even begged him to enter the 2008 Presidential primary race, he maintained that he was not "good at that stuff" (although none of the events that denied him his rightful victory were of his doing), and decided against it.

As the country blunders to the close of its most disastrous presidency ever, the stars should be aligning not just for a Democratic 2008 election victory, but, more importantly, to usher in another progressive age as the empty rhetoric, false idolatry, cowardly aggression and phony piety that was the culmination of all the right wing dreamed for this country came crashing down on all our heads.

And yet, the stars seem to misalign again. Out of a talented crowded field, two appealing, enormously well-funded candidates have emerged to lead that new progressive era. The electorate appears to be divided 50.1- 49.9, and the anomalies of superdelegates and unseated delegations jumble even that calculation. Regrettably -- that is, to the wide electorate who desperately wants only to turn the page -- neither is likely to desist.

The Clintons scored their comeback by launching a scorched earth strategy, specifically aligning themselves with McCain over Obama. While Obama will probably show his superior character, his inevitable counterattacks -- and, key questions that now must be raised by reporters and superdelegates on her taxes and White House records and Marc Rich, etc. -- are not likely to boost her chances in the fall election either.

The Democratic electorate is split. While 50.1% and 49.9% of the delegates and electorate will find it difficult for their candidate to retire in favor of the other, would it not be true that ~85% or more would enthusiastically embrace Al Gore?

Time for "Al de Gore" to "put himself at the disposal of his country"?

Comments

[ProudLiberalDan]

While a DRAFT GORE for 2nd Ballot movement would be the longest of longshots, a DLC candidate like Barack Obama could do a lot worse than selecting him for VP.

One, he's indisputably qualified to be President.
Two, conservatives would want to ensure Obama's physical health.
Three, and this is no small matter, if Obama is the nominee, it will be because the Superdelegates blessed his 51%-49% victory over Hillary Clinton. While some of the Obamaniacs on this board are perfectly willing to piss all over Clinton and her supporters, I hope someone in Team Obama knows better. If even 10% of those who support Hlllary stay home, or vote for a minor-party candidate, or (God forbid) vote for McCain it would be disastrous for his Presidential campaign no matter how many new people he brings into the ballot.

Gore pick as VP would be celebrated by 99% of the party.

Whatever. Get these two DLC-to-the-bone candidates together in a room with Howard Dean and let them figure out which one gets to make token history as the first __________ President.

It's the slimmest of chances, but I'm going to support not giving the nomination to either of them on the first ballot and drafting Gore for a second ballot nomination.

[zjr909]

Watching all those campaign dollars go down the drain would be worth an Al Gore nomination all by itself. In a campaign ostensibly all about CHANGE, the one thing that needs most desperately to be changed is barely mentioned by the campaigners-for-change: the buying of the presidency, that's gone on probably longer than most voters - and candidates - have been alive. I don't want a president based on campaign ads; I want a president based on what the country actually needs. And even though Al Gore - and Al Gore alone - provides just about everything the country needs just now, I'm not at all sure he's "electable." We love our politicians to be like celebrities; but we don't mean for them to actually BE celebrities. And the Nobel Prize comes about as close as anything else to being the kiss of death for a politician because it brands its recipient as an intellectual - which is, for most Americans, prima facie evidence of unsuitability for public life. And the thing is, the "Mr. Ozone" would start up all over again - and would still resonate with just enough voters to help defeat a Gore campaign. Besides, we don't get the president we need; we get the president we deserve. God help us.

[NoPCZone]

I could get behind that. As long as no Clinton is on the ticket, I'm good.

[UncleDave]

While Al is my dream choise,I don't think it'll happen. What I am struck by most is the favorable comments here. On other pregressive blogs(Crooks and Liars,for instance) the vitriol between the two candidates' supporters is huge. Gore is never mentioned. But,alas,as pointed out here a few times,Al really doesn't want the job.A shame because He is exactly what this country desperately needs.

[asere]

I told all my fellow Goristas last summer to stay tuned and keep the powder dry.
A Gore / Obama ticket would be more than a dream ticket; it would be an 'SPECTACULAR' ticket.
Never give up fellow Goristas!

[Annisee]

Much as I'd love to see a President Gore, I don't see the logic here.

After the country has cast its votes for two people who WANT the presidency, the result being near enough equal share to each - what would be the point of drafting someone who doesn't want the presidency ?

These 2 years of campaign all for nothing - all those $$$$$ down the drain?

Surely the answer is for the Democratic party to sort it out in some way acceptable to all, from the candidates who DO want the presidency.

[ProudLiberalDan]

There is far more at stake here than the personal ambitions of these two DLC-to-the-bone candidates. I don't care how much time and energy they've spent already. I do care about the future of the country.

Just because these are the two last standing doesn't mean they are the best ones for the job.

Do what any business does when the advertise for a job and the crop of candidates comes up short. Launch a new search.

Denying either Clinton or Obama a first ballot victory frees up the Democrats to draft whoever they want. That's in the best interests of the party and country whether it is in the best interests of the two remaining candidates or not.

[Cathexis]

He was my first choice; I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[kmurtitowardchange]

The Clintons aligned themselves w/McCain? That's not aligning just because one's view of some subject is the same as your interlocuttor. That's called coincidence--tho' the blogger thinks its sinister them taking the same tact between= the two power elites...what's sinister is fomenting the idea that she (meaning Hill) is not as progressive as Obama. I think she is not unwise, yet perhaps a little rude in this give & take between the campaigners. It's not sinister, like the elitist autonomy the cons presume their knowledge portends, in just how they'd manage our country, for instance. I'd prefer some independent thought rather than this back-room brawl we all expect...some humility: like Obama bowing to more experience if necessary, or Hill taking 2nd in command if these power-brokers (super delegates) see the over-all popular Will implicating that scenario.

[Sumocat]

I greatly respect Al Gore, but I have come to accept that he lacks an essential element needed to become President, namely, the thirst for power. His work, from drafting the legislation that led to the Internet to educating us about environmental responsibility, illustrates a drive to enlighten others. Certainly that is a trait I would want in a President, but that he does not hunger for power itself kept him from the Presidency. Were he, as Vice President, a power-monger like our current VP, Gore would have muscled his way into office and be President today. Of course, if that was the case, I would probably also respect him as much as I do our current VP.

[Sundialsvc4]

What you are seeing there is "leadership."

No, "statesmanship."

It is precisely the kind of qualities that are needed in a Chief Executive, that is true. But the people who possess those qualities in abundance find many ways to exercise them both in business and in government. They win the Nobel Peace Prize but often do not win the respect of the power-establishment in their countries. Al Gore has it; so does Jimmy Carter, although the two are not the same sort of men.

As long as a bloodthirsty gang of criminals continue to hold sway in all three Branches of our Government, and continue to "pwn" the press, there's not a great incentive for Mr. Gore to take the cut-in-pay, or perhaps the personal danger, that being President of the United States would now entail.

You had your chance. You gave it away, and this is what you got.

[JimLarkin]

gore as 2nd ballot nominee... yeah, i'd get up earlier

[loril]

I signed the "draft Gore" petition...I'd LOVE to see him involved somehow, miraculously, at this late date. However, it feels like a pipe dream to me. I doubt he is going to pull a deGaulle anytime soon. But, if you are reading this, Mr. Gore, please consider it!

[Mack1124]

As an African American woman I would vote for Gore, donate to Gore and volunteer for Gore in an instant. He would have been the most qualified and prepared to be President.

[jrterrier]

Are you crazy? Gore may garner praise as a non-politician but very few are ready to welcome him back to be the Dem candidate.

[asere]

jrterrier, please tell us WHY?

[tea in the harbor]

Interesting idea, but he doesn't seem interested. I think he see's today's politics as to nasty an enterprise to be of value.(as will Obama if he is slimed out of this thing) Political "handlers" mold and shape our politicians to the point where they seldom resemble their former selves by election day, these aides, whose sole purpose is to win, are the real grease balls! Candidates buy in at their own pace, but most start out to do good, only to look one day into a mirror and realize that they are what they came to stop! I don't think Al bought in. I don't think he wants to! I don't think Barack has bought in yet either, but his temptation has just begun, I am optimistic, but we shall see! Just my take.

[orifox]

And you just totally contradicted yourself? If Barack Obama conceeding in 2000 would have rendered him a bad nominee then why nominate Al Gore now??????

[ProudLiberalDan]

No, the DLC-Gore of 2000 are the "Inconvenient Truth" Gore of now are not the same candidate. Something in him has been freed and liberated.