The Nation: Will Gore Influence '08?

[marmar]

WILL GORE INFLUENCE '08?..."Seven years ago tomorrow," Al Gore said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech today, "I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistakem--if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose."

Since the Supreme Court forced him into political retirement, Gore has occasionally forayed back into politics--usually brilliantly, sometimes off-key. He gave a magnificently prescient speech back in 2002 against the war in Iraq. His series of speeches for MoveOn.org, on topics such as Iraq, the war on terror, civil liberties and the environment, helped galvanize opposition to the radical policies of the Bush Administration.

On the other hand, his key return to electoral politics--when he endorsed Howard Dean a month before the Iowa caucus--was an abject failure. Gore can't be blamed for Dean's loss, but he couldn't confer the legitimacy of a win. He wisely decided against a comeback in '08.

Since the Dean endorsement, Gore's stock has shot up, thanks to "An Inconvenient Truth" and a subsequent Oscar and Nobel Prize. Climate change is his passion today--and he'd like the candidates for president to follow suit.

"Some of the candidates have made speeches which are quite good and proposals that are quite responsible, but overall the issue has not achieved the kind of priority that I think it should have," Gore told Reuters today.

All of the Democratic candidates have unveiled very strong plans to curb global warming, but Gore's right that, in debates and candidate forums, the topic doesn't get the attention it deserves. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=258486

[frazzled]

1. Wasn't The Nation supposed to make its own endorsement this week?

I heard Katrina van den Heuvel say it would be announced, and that there was a tough fight going on about it--I guess the fight must be tougher even than they thought.

I recall the Gore endorsement very well, and I thought it was a huge mistake for a number of reasons:

(1) National-level party leaders rarely, if ever, make primary endorsements. I thought this was suicide for Gore's own future political career, or even his status as elder statesman of the party. And, indeed, had he not made it, he might himself have more influence in the party today. He might even have been able to be a candidate this time around.

(2) My recollection is that I was put off not by the endorsement itself (except for what I thought it would do to Gore's future political career), but what I seem to remember as a call for everyone to just step aside and annoint Dean the winner--sort of a 'what do we need primaries for' statement. Anyone recall that?