Wait! Before you lapse into uncontrollable laughter, read this diary. There are several interesting parallells between 1968 and 2008 that may illuminate a path to a Gore candidacy. While this is highly speculative, it is a topic that has not received muc attention.
Please recommend this if you find it interesting!
1968
A once popular president, who has managed to advance major reforms in domestic policy in his tenure, has become bogged down by a a foreign conflict. Now the foreign conflict has advanced to a point that it is clear the original objectives are impossible to meet, and the United States must forge an exit strategy that has some hope of being stable.
At the same time, the foreign conflict has diminished the ability of the president to continue with his domestic agenda, and the reforms he trumpeted in 1964 have only partially been accomplished, as his political capital has bled dry on the battlefields of Asia.
So, the president is announces he will not seek another term in 2008, leaving the field open to all comers. His eventual successor is his great nemesis from 1960, the man who nearly defeated his ticket then, and who now emerges stronger and more determined than before.
This man, a former vice president in an administration remembered for its legacy of economic prosperity, narrowly lost out to a popular son of a political dynasty. In fact, one his opponents is nearly the brother of his former foe. The former vice president campaigns on a plan to withdraw from the Asian conflict with a sense of dignity, while promising to introduce real domestic reforms that have languished.
While the race is tight, as the country remains split on the best outcome to the war, the former vice president wins a narrow victory in the popular vote, but a resounding victory in the Electoral College.
2008
For those unfamiliar with American history, the man in 1968 was Richard Nixon, and the war was in Vietnam. While historical parallels are tenuous at best, they do offer some general comments on the course of events, forcing those in the present to imagine their relevance.
Considering the parallels, I write this to introduce the question of Al Gore. Why not Al Gore in 2008? In retrospect, he ran a decent campaign, that faced a very difficult political landscape, namely an apathetic electorate. The nation was satisfied with the prosperity of the 1990s, and felt like the two candidates were basically the same. This was the same quandary Nixon faced in 1960.
In 2008, Gore would represent Democrats that were strongly opposed to the Iraq War from the outset. He has commented on national affairs in a timely and dignified manner, while not sinking into the petty debates aired on cable channels. He brings a wealth of experience, including fresh experience in the private sector from the last eight years.
Finally, his platform from 2000 seems even more appropriate for 2008, fiscal discipline, debt reduction, and responsible investments in domestic policy. His foreign policy of "forward engagement," which advocated addressing security challenges as they emerge, rather than waiting for crisis, seems like an appropriate approach to terrorism. We need to solve problems when they are solvable, rather than waiting for them to explode.
In closing, this diary is intended to foster a discussion, as I am personally not convinced. I wanted to set out some of the reasons for a Gore candidacy, and I hope that it will ignite some small consideration. I urge you all to take a few seconds before you respond, and think about Gore in the context of 2008, not the context we all remember in 2000.