The case against Al Gore in 2016

[DonViejo]

Ezra Klein says the former veep should give the race a go. Why that's not such a good idea

LUKE BRINKER

The notion of an Al Gore presidency seemed to fade with his decision not to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008, a decision the former vice president made even though his climate activism and fierce denunciations of the Bush administration had generated a groundswell of support.

But early stumbles by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton have put Gore back on the chattering class’s mind, with some pundits speculating that Clinton’s shortcomings could prompt him to plot a presidential comeback. Ezra Klein is the latest to float a third Gore campaign, writing today that the ex-veep “offers a genuinely different view of what the Democratic Party — and, by extension, American politics — should be about.”

Let’s get this much out of the way: If Gore really wants to run for president in 2016, he should. As a former congressman, senator, and vice president — then a globe-trotting activist, businessman, and Oscar winner — Gore boasts a wide-ranging resume unmatched by any other potential candidate. But there’s no indication that Gore wants to run, and the case for him to make the race is a remarkably weak one.

Take Klein’s piece. Though he maintains that Gore “need not be a single-issue candidate,” Klein sees Gore’s impassioned climate advocacy as the primary reason he should come out of political retirement. Whereas economic inequality is a “serious problem,” he writes, the climate crisis is an existential one — and Gore is uniquely positioned to address it:

When it comes to climate change, there’s no one in the Democratic Party — or any other political party — with Gore’s combination of credibility and commitment. Bill McKibben, founder of the climate action group 350.org, calls Gore’s work on the issue “the most successful second act of any political life in U.S. history.” Perhaps that’s hyperbole, but it speaks to the regard Gore is held in by climate activists. Though he’s been out of office for 15 years, he’s never left the climate fight. Gore has proven himself the opposite of those politicians who love the game more than they care about the issues.

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/16/the_case_against_al_gore_in_2016/

[Gman]

1. He'd make a good candidate

And president. He knows policy like few others. While I currently favor Hillary, I'd give Gore another look.

[brooklynite]

11. He made a bad candidate in 2000...

...and I don't see any indication that would change.

[Gman]

12. He was a great candidate. I supported him

enthusiastically and could do it again. He should have been president but for Nader.

[brooklynite]

14. He had no defining campaign message and lost 10 States won by Clinton...

...including his home State.

[Gman]

16. Most, people if not all of those states tipped to Bush

Because of the scum Nader.

[brooklynite]

18. No they did not...

Nader was a factor only in Florida.

[still_one]

27. He made a lot of mistakes during his campaign, the worst was his choice for VP

[Gman]

28. Very true

But I liked how he moved his campaign out of DC and to TN because he saw mistakes being made early on. That probably kept him from making even more and worse mistakes.

There are no perfect campaigns and everything is crystal clear after the fact.

I don't know about the VP pick. You have to have something to appeal to the middle and that was what Lieberman was for. Lieberman was a good friend of organized labor and was good on other domestic issues. He just looses his head over the middle east.

[still_one]

29. Regardless, I think this is a moot issue, I don''t see Al running

[Gman]

30. I believe you are correct.

[Corey_Baker08]

2. I Would Support Al Gore Over Any Democratic Primary Challenger...

Just for starters I believe that his time out of Government & Washington would be a huge advantage to him.

He is without a doubt intelligent, experienced & well liked. He would be an extraordinarily Candidate that I believe would bring unity to the Democratic Party and someone who would have no trouble winning the General Election.

Now it's just getting him to actually run!

Draft Gore 2016!!!

[YvonneCa]

5. Same..

...here.

[Fearless]

3. I would vote for him over Hillary

Based on credentials.

[MosheFeingold]

22. +1

The Clintons are out for the Clintons.

[Myrina]

4. I would vote for Al again in a heartbeat ... but ...

... I wouldn't wish Presidential Politics on my worst enemy. What a FUBAR'd shit-storm the profession has become.

There's no traditional Presidentin' involved anymore; it's all fundraising and dealing with the temper tantrums from the TP.

[Yonx]

6. The media won't let him win

He's probably the only politician who would attract as much hatred from MSM (including Dowd) than Hillary.

[stevenleser]

7. Gore vs Hillary in the primary would be a bloodbath.

[Gman]

13. Not any more than Hillary and Obama

And that worked out fine.

[stevenleser]

15. It worked out fine because Hillary decided to be gracious. She could have taken her fight to the

convention and it would have been very ugly.

[Gman]

17. At what cost? She could have gone it but

Obama already had enough votes on the first ballot of those committed anyway. That's always been a non-issue. It was bad enough dealing with the PUMA issue.

[stevenleser]

19. You never know. Superdelegates can have their arms twisted. The issue of Florida and Michigan could

have been pushed harder at the rules committee. You never know. If Hillary had fought and refused to recognize the results if she lost, it would have split the party in two.

[Gman]

20. She knew all that

And decided it was s mom-starter.

[stevenleser]

21. No, she decided to be gracious. She had three options.

#1 - Fight

#2 - Not fight, but not be supportive of Obama either. Concede and go away.

#3 - Not fight and be supportive and gracious.

There is no question that fighting would have been an uphill battle. I give her chances at prevailing at somewhere south of 20%. But it was not zero. Someone like a Nader would have fought and to hell with the consequences, for instance. That would have shattered the party.

[Gman]

26. She had very little chance of prevailing

So she decided to be gracious. I agree. The political risks to not only her, but to the party were actually unthinkable. In return she got probably the most plumb of cabinet positions.

And the people I was talking to at the time are all FOB's from 92 (I was a Clinton delegate to the DNC in 92) and were totally in the loop in 08. I think it was briefly considered but never was a starter.

To be sure there was a great deal of animosity between Obama and Clinton folks in 08, the likes of which I'd never seen (especially locally) in almost 40 years. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Losing the White House because of being split, I think was the one thing everyone could agree could not happen.

P.s. Looking back on my previous posts here, I hate autocorrect.

[MosheFeingold]

31. Gracious?

You do know she was the original "birther"?

[lutefisk]

8. Gore & Warren 2016 would be cool

But doesn't he have a few things (like the massage accusations) that the media, Fox, and the Karl Rove spawn could really run with to hurt him? With complete control of the government in reach, I think the Right wing attack machine will play dirtier than ever in 2016.

[craigmatic]

9. Gore should've ran in 2004

[joshcryer]

24. +1, and he should've been pissed off.

Kerry, as much as people won't like to hear this, was such a boring, safe candidate.

Gore should've been pissed off the whole time and simply said "everyone who voted for me last time, vote for me again."

[Az_lefty]

10. I'd vote for Al over anyone else

[lutefisk]

23. Me too! nt

[davidpdx]

25. It would be great if he ran, but I highly doubt he would

I think given everything that has happened in the last decade and a half, he's comfortable and happy with what he's doing.