  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Marie Cocco: An Inconvenient CandidatePosted on Dec 13, 2006By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—Oh, he would be an inconvenient candidate. Al Gore says he is “not planning’’ to run for the White House again, but hasn’t “completely ruled it out.” Yet here he is among us, pitching the release on DVD of his global-warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and hosting, along with the Internet-based political group Moveon.org, more than a thousand house parties on Saturday at which the film is to be shown and then discussed during a conference call with the star himself. The high-tech coffee klatches could easily form the foundation of a full-blown presidential run, though it seems that Gore is campaigning more for an Oscar nomination than a presidential one. Let’s hope he gets the gold statuette and forswears, officially and unequivocally, another White House bid. I wish for this not because I concur in the media’s savage depiction of Gore as an equivocating wearer of earth-tone clothes who sighs too audibly in debate, and kisses his wife too ostentatiously on stage. It is because the former vice president is far more impressive as an authoritative public citizen than he ever was as a presidential candidate. Gore has been right, early and often, about the inconvenient truths that are the hallmarks of the Bush era. He warned in his 2000 speech to the Democratic National Convention that a Bush White House would give free rein to “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs.” The Republican version of a Medicare drug plan, Gore said, “tells seniors to beg the HMOs and insurance companies for prescription drug coverage.” Early in the fall of 2002, with Bush pounding the war drums to promote the invasion of Iraq and pummeling uncertain Democrats, Gore gave what was then—and is now—a comprehensive and accurate critique of the coming misadventure. Diverting the military from the unfinished work in Afghanistan would be a disaster, he warned. The lack of broad international support for an Iraq invasion would diminish America’s global standing and leave U.S. taxpayers to “shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own.” The aftermath of the invasion would be more crucial to its outcome than the initial battles, he said. Without a plan for nation-building after the swift march to Baghdad, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam,” Gore warned. That was five months before the invasion. In June 2004, the former vice president decried the deceptions and manipulations that the Bush administration fed to the public as necessary to the war on terror. He spoke of the clash between “the ideological illusions upon which this administration’s policies have been based, and the reality of the world in which the American people live their lives.” So Gore has an unerring knack for puncturing policy fictions, and for sometimes seeing the future. But he has unmistakably dull political instincts. His 1988 presidential campaign was based on the fantasy that he could skip the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and run as a native Southerner in the Super Tuesday primaries concentrated throughout that region. He wound up splitting the Southern contests with the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, and Northern liberal Michael Dukakis emerged as the big winner that day. Gore then went north to the New York primary, where he become entangled in a high-profile endorsement from New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch, who managed to turn the campaign into a racially charged referendum on Jackson’s attitude toward Jews. Gore’s 2000 presidential bid was hobbled by his obvious uncertainty about how to treat Bill Clinton—the man who’d put him on the 1992 ticket as the vice presidential candidate, and so brought him to the verge of ascending to the Oval Office. The painful dance between the two was an awkward sideshow throughout the campaign. Gore won the popular vote and may well have taken Florida—and the presidency—had all votes been properly counted. Yet it shouldn’t have been that close for a vice president who could take some credit for an economic boom. As for Gore’s role in the 2004 campaign, he endorsed Howard Dean only a month before Dean’s spectacular collapse in Iowa. Enough said.
Gore is an intellectual thoroughbred, but he has no feel for running the muddy track of presidential politics. For this, he does not deserve ridicule but a chance at respect. The nation doesn’t need another ambitious politician. It needs what Al Gore already has become—a fine public sage.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Clinton Pick Wins Conservatives’ Approval
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By rosemachardy, December 20, 2006 at 12:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gore should run if just to save this democracy let alone promote global cooling. In reality, I’ll vote for Hilary Clinton for President, Barack Obama for VP. What a ticket!
Report thisBy Nettie, December 20, 2006 at 11:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nonsense! I see Gore as having honed his Southern politeness into a political sword that he will wield effectively in “08. As in “no more Mr. Niceguy.” He is a statesman. His elucidation of what the planet faces and how we can intervene in disaster and his plan to extricate ourselves from Iraq, show he is no shrinking intellectual violet any longer. I’d like to see a Gore/Wes Clark ticket in ‘08...between the 2 of them, I believe they could be an unstopable force to win the election and bring the much needed balance back to the executive branch.
Report thisBy David, December 20, 2006 at 9:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I believe Al Gore when he says he’s learned from his past political mistakes and would run a different race—let it all hang out, I think he said—if he had it to do over again.
If, as Cocco writes, “Gore has an unerring knack for puncturing policy fictions, and for sometimes seeing the future,” and if, as I believe, he would discard the cautious veneer that has in the past hidden this talent from the voters, Gore would make not only a great president, but an excellent candidate.
The last thing we need is another candidate who recognizes only after losing that a wishy-washy, triangulating presidential campaign is a fool’s errand. Let’s nominate someone who has already graduated from the school of political hard knocks, not someone who is just matriculating.
Report thisBy Kathlyn, December 15, 2006 at 3:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I see Al Gore as a wise, distinguished amd respected statesman; a U.S. Ambassador-at-large; a universally trusted and trustworthy diplomatic troubleshooter; special Envoy to the United Nations. He is too valuable to be confined to a partisan political role. He is necessary to all of us everywhere.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, December 15, 2006 at 7:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
At least the platform is more attractive.
It would be restful to consider something constructive for a change.
Report thisBy Eleanore Kjellberg, December 14, 2006 at 4:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish he would runbecoming energy independent is critical, we need to be concerned about environmental issues, in order to ensure that we have a future.
It would also be nice to have someone with a brain in the White House.
Report thisBy Ernest, December 14, 2006 at 11:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What counts is Gore’s judgment, that he has always been right, and his morality and principles, dating back to when as Senator he became expert on nuclear disarmament and the environment. Now he could run contrasting his judgment with Bush’s, making all other issues pale into insignificance. If the Florida vote in 2000 was in doubt, the fairest way of deciding the election then would have been on the basis of the majority of the popular vote, and had the Supreme Court so ruled, the world today would be a far, far better place.
Report this