The weeping and moaning that followed Kos' "Gore won't run" posting was truly epic. And I normally hate adding to that kind of 'OMG LETS ALL POST DIARIES ON THE SAME TOPIC' rush. It was terribly depressing too, since Gore's statement seemed to be a largely unqualified "never again".
But as TAPPED points out by way of TNR (which is an interesting sign of ideological unity in and of itself), Gore has a whole lot of options that give him an almost "perfect storm" opportunity in 2008.
Here's the
excerpt from Ryan Lizza provided by TAPPED.
His early, vocal, and unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq has made him a hero to many Democrats. The Hollywood liberals over at Huffington Post as well as the university-town activists at Daily Kos and Moveon.org love Gore. If he ran, he would instantly become the favored candidate of the "netroots," the antiwar, anti-Bush crowd that championed Howard Dean and that will be a significant source of money and buzz in the run-up to 2008...
If he runs for president he would be the only candidate in either party who instantly passes the post-9/11 threshold on national security issues. Hillary's credible case that as first lady she engaged in diplomacy and was treated abroad like a world leader would be dwarfed by Gore's eight-year record as vice president sitting on the National Security Council.
And Gore might be the only Democrat who can solve a vexing issue facing the party: How does a candidate establish a reputation for toughness on national security while simultaneously criticizing the war? Gore supported the Gulf War and, in most Clinton administration battles over the use of force, he took the more hawkish position. He is the party's only credible antiwar hawk.
There's a whole long list of organizations I'd rather give my meager cash to than TNR, so I can't provide you fulltext of the article. TAP blogger Ezra Klein supports the view, and adds this:
Lucky for him, his status in the party eliminates his need for the early campaigning most contenders require to build their reputations. If he does decide to announce a candidacy, his longtime affiliation with MoveOn, his endorsement of Howard Dean, and his deep ties with netroots activists will allow him to instantly form an online fundraising machine that'll dwarf anything that's come before, rendering him instantly competitive in the primary states no matter how late he enters the race. It's quite an enviable position, and I'll be fairly surprised if Gore is able to resist using it.
I have to agree. Gore has a whole lot of advantages in 2008 that he certainly didn't have in 2000. Where he had to deal with a lot of infighting in 2008, he'll have a far more united Democratic Party today-- what other candidate could get support from both TAP and TNR years before the election? He'll have a bunch of favorable pundits this year where he didn't in 2000, including Olberman on MSNBC and the bloggers. He'll have a record of strong speeches and a long video library of passionate advocacy, as well as an army of fact-checkers. He will not be "Gored" again. And I think that by 2008 the bloggers and our media allies will be able to stop him from being "Swiftboated". Also, the Clinton/Gore Admin has been elevated to almost divine status in most Democratic discourse over the past 5 years, and it would be incredibly hard for any other challenger to really rip into that legacy. He'll have a political base that won't be vulnerable to narcisstic Nader masturbation this time; he'll be running without the dead weight of a thousand Clinton scandals behind him. And he'll be running with a new and better set of strategists. Al Gore won in 2000 and I believe he can win in 2008.
Gore appeals to the party's left because he's an antiwar, pro-technology populist. He appeals to the Washington establishment because of his long history in government, his involvement in the Clinton Administration, his many connections, and his historical involvement with the DLC (like Howard Dean, he was one of its earliest "success stories"). He's got credibility on the war AND on supporting national defense. He's a pro-choice politician who was a member of the administration that reduced abortions more than any other in recent history. He's a deeply religious man who nevertheless has been a consistent support of gay rights. He's a Southerner who understands the issues of inequality and poverty, but also the deep values, of the region.
Hillary will split the party like an anvil on a rotten stump. But she is a powerful force nevertheless. We need a heavyweight to stop a heavyweight; Clark, Warner, and Edwards will never be able to stand up to a fundraising and political dynamo like Hillary. I believe Al Gore MUST run for President in 2008 if we have any hope of winning back the White House. And I think that if he does not, if he chooses to ignore the perfect storm building up behind him, then he will be waving away his chance to truly change America for the better. He will be spitting on his destiny. And that ain't cool.