There has been a lot of chatter about Al Gore as a candidate and a lot of enthusiasm from what I gather. PLS has a recommended diary about him (
http://www.dailykos.com/...) and there have been a couple of draft Gore diaries these last couple of days.
I was inspired to write this diary after I read Chris Cillizza's "Friday Line" where he addressed presidential candidate forerunners for 2008. He did not mention Gore, but out of 368 comments, there were 111 mentions of Al Gore. Clearly Gore has some buzz going on (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...).
Al Gore is my current front-runner if he decides to run. It remains uncertain if he will run but I would like to go through some advantages of dkos supporting a Gore bid for the White House and see what everyone thinks.
We overwhelmingly supported Dean in 2004, right? There is an inherent advantage to putting our $, time, and energy together in favor of the BEST candidate. I think Gore is that candidate, for the reasons I will argue below. How can a divided netroots system nourish the same plant?
Advantages to supporting Gore:
1. The Anti-Hillary
Al Gore would be a decisive anti-Hillary. With the current playing field, we run the risk of having one strong Hillary and a couple of other equal candidates sharing the remainder of the support. That scenario is good for Hillary. If she gets 30% of the vote in Iowa (which she should be able to do since she has a $15 million war chest right now) and there is no clear anti-Hillary she would probably win. Maybe Edwards would get 25% and Clark would get the other 25% with everything else split b/w everyone else. BOOM. Hillary wins Iowa with 30%.
Al Gore has a decided advantages over everyone else. He was the vice president under the popular Clinton administration. He has very high name recognition. He ran for president. He has strong liberal credentials (environment and anti-Iraq War). With these top-dog credentials, we could gravitate to Gore and ensure the defeat of Hillary in the primary.
I honestly don't think Hillary could win in a general election because she is a female congresswoman from New York (no Northerner or Congressman has become a Democratic president since Kennedy). The Right Wing has also been doing a hit job on her ever since speculation started of a HRC run for the White House. I also think there are people who (rightfully so) disdain at the idea of a "Clinton Dynasty." This isn't medieval Europe.
2. Electability:
Gore is very electable for several reasons. First of all, he already won the popular vote. In addition to that, some people undoubtedly regret voting for Bush and would be willing to give Gore a second chance. There is also a new age group that never had the chance to vote for Gore but has become overwhelmingly liberal-- the 18-25 year olds.
Another reason Gore is electable is because of his consistent anti-Bush stances throughout the last 6 years. He opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning. He has also been critical of Bush on a slew of other issues. Time has proven Al Gore correct in a way that only Howard Dean could also benefit from. Integrity. Say it with me.
The national environment, if it stays the same, will be another reason Gore is electable. Presidential approval ratings are important for determining the "national mood" leading up to a presidential election (the other important factor is the economy). If the Republican in the White House has good approval ratings then chances are the Republican running for the job will have good odds at winning. The reverse is also true. If Bush's approval ratings stay around 40% leading into 2008, ANY Republican running for the job will have an uphill battle and can count on losing. Gore v McCain? Bring it on. Bush will bring McCain into the gutter and Gore will be in a unique position to say "I told you so." Neither Kerry, nor Edwards, nor Clinton will be in the best position to capitalize on Bush's low approval ratings because they all supported the president on some of his more deviant adventures (Iraq cough cough). This could allow the GOP candidate to "blur" this inherent Democratic advantage.
His electability also comes from a historical perspective as well. First of all is his uncanny parallel to Nixon's rise. Nixon (Eisenhower's VP) narrowly lost to Kennedy in 1960. Gore (Clinton's VP) narrowly lost to Bush in 2000. Eisenhower's presidency was a drag to Nixon because of the so-called "Missle Gap," the U2 crisis, and Cuba turning Communist. Clinton drug down Gore because of the Lewinsky scandal. Nixon came back 8 years of turmoil later to defeat the Democrats who were split between the "Left" and the "establishment"; Nixon won by catching the center (also dubbed the "silent majority.") Gore came back after 8 years of turmoil to defeat the Republicans who's base was split following an unsuccessful war, gay scandals, and fiscal recklessness; Gore won by unifying his base and catching a disproportionate amount of independent voters.
Also from a historical perspective is the Southernor/Executive rule of Democrats. Clinton = Southern Governor, Carter = Southern Governor, LBJ = Southern VP. All modern Republican presidents have been from the executive branch (Bush Jr = Gov, Bush Sr = VP, Reagan = Gov, Nixon = VP).
3. Justice:
Gore won the popular vote in 2008 but the shenanigans of the SCOTUS and Katherine Harris prevented him from winning the electoral vote. Boo. Putting Gore in the White House would be sweet sweet justice.
Also, there is a general feeling that things could be much, much better in this country if Gore had been president.
4. Integrity:
Don't get me wrong, I voted for Kerry and John Edwards is my #2 (after Gore) for 2008. However, Gore has integrity. He stood up to Bush in 2002 when Bush wanted to rush into war with Iraq. Gore layed down the facts, political conditions (Bush's 80% approval ratings) be damned. Can we really whore ourselves out during the primary to the candidates that bent over and took it from Bush in 2002 like Kerry and Clinton? No. We didn't in 2004 and we shouldn't in 2008.
You might say that Clark or Obama don't have that Iraq taint, and you're right. However, Gore is a more serious candidate than either. Gore has campaigned in 3 presidential elections and has a lifetime of political servitude under his belt. Might I suggest instead that we push for Gore/Clark or Gore/Obama in 2008. Build up Clark or Obama's credentials for a serious and experienced 2016 bid. I personally think that Gore/Obama would equal a 16 year dominance of Democrats in the White House.
So what does everyone think of drafting and backing Gore for 2008?