SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Half-baked Gore Speculation

THE PLANK OCTOBER 12, 2007

Half-baked Gore Speculation

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

Al Gore's Nobel Prize has us all wondering who he'll endorse, something Marc Ambinder says is likely to happen in December. My two cents: If at that point it looks like Obama has some chance of winning the nomination, it'll be Obama. I say that for the following reasons: 1.) Obama has the most credible claim to being a transformative figure, something Gore (rightly) fancies himself, too. 2.) Obama, like Gore, got the war right from the get-go. 3.) Hillary, in addition to coming up short on points one and two, has long been a rival of Gore's, and vice versa.

And 4.) Crass politics. Consider the following scenarios: a.) If Gore endorses Obama and Obama goes on to win, he's a kingmaker, visionary, etc. b.) If Gore endorses Hillary and Hillary goes on to win, what has he proven? That he can affirm the conventional wisdom? Jump on the bandwagon at some late date? c.) If Gore endorses Obama and Hillary wins the nomination, I don't think Gore's lost much. I don't get the sense he wants to be in the inner-circle of another Clinton White House. And, as for the issue he cares most about--global warming--he's the biggest name on the planet. If Hillary becomes president and wants to get something done on the issue, she'd look incredibly petty not turning to Gore in some capacity.

P.S. Check out Ryan Lizza's excellent piece on the Gore and Clinton factions of the party for more on this. (See also this Lizza piece, which foreshadowed the Gore endorsement of Dean in 2003. At that point it was looking more like a Dean-Gore faction than a Gore faction.)

Update: Chris Cillizza's sources tell him it'll either be Obama or Edwards. I still say Obama, but there is this to keep in mind: Joe Trippi, who helped broker the Gore endorsement for Dean four years ago, is now Edwards's chief strategist. Given how that turned out, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But, at the very least, Trippi probably has Gore's cell number...

--Noam Scheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 46 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

46 comments

Nothing to add, except that I think you're dead-on. Do we think that a Gore endorsement will put Obama or Edwards over the top?

- benjamin81

October 12, 2007 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it would put either Obama or Edwards over the top in Iowa and have a single digit effect nationwide.

- wgcreeley

October 12, 2007 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But who will Bill Clinton endorse?

- Gabbage

October 12, 2007 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can someone explain to me why he isn't running? Apart from the fear of losing again, which (forgive my TD moment here) makes him look like a coward. Surely, no other candidate in modern times (Nixon?) has such a lock on a nomination as Gore. Failing some monumental f*ck up in the primaries he would get the nod, with ease. And has any Democrat in living memory had such a promising general election political landscape to look forward too? If he cares about the environment as much as he claims too, then he has to run, as nobody buys the "I can do more outside of politics" tripe. If not now, then when? Never is the answer. In that respect Bush well and truly beat him in every sense in 00. More's the pity.

- The Ignorant Populist

October 12, 2007 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've been saying this for a while. If Gore is still fat in the fall, then he will not run. Gore is still fat. Gore will not run.

- virginiacentrist

October 12, 2007 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

why endorse anyone? why not stay above the fray, and look more dignified in the process. after whoever wins the nomination then he can campaign for them.

- blackton

October 12, 2007 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

maybe his heart just ain't in it anymore. even athletes in their prime walk away because it doesn't mean what it did. I can respect his decision, I wish he didn't feel that way but still respect him.

- blackton

October 12, 2007 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because he doesn't have a lock on the nomination, Iggy. Hillary does. Gore wouldn't even be the Democratic nominee, let alone have a chance to lose in 2008.

- phargle

October 12, 2007 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/1 0/gore200710 When I read this article (written by Martin Peretz's daughter, incidentally) it was easy to understand why he won't run again. Running for President is a bruising business, particularly for a man who's not a natural pol.

- Gabbage

October 12, 2007 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beside being bruising, as gabbage put it, it is also boring. The same damn speech, night after night, kissing babies, speaking to endless arrays of old people in diners in Cornhole, IA, everything. I think Gore, especially the Al Gore of today who seems exploding with energy, would chafe and get distracted. He is in a position right now where he needn't pander, calculate etc. Even given his current popularity he would still have to make calibrated concessions, and I don't think he wants to do that. Of course, I don't actually know the fellow, so this is fairly meaningless.

- boneill

October 12, 2007 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ha ha ha ha ha. that is the funniest thing I have read all day. No, wait, you are serious? In that case HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Hillary would be toast so quickly it would make her head spin. Of course Al would be coronated. It would be no contest. And I like Obama.

- blackton

October 12, 2007 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed. Unless Gore botched his entrance completely, he'd be the nominee with minimal effort...I think he'd take most of his support from Obama and Edwards, incidentally, as their supporters tend to not be brain dead apathetic working class voters like the large majority of Hillary's support.

- virginiacentrist

October 12, 2007 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who will TNR be endorsing? Too bad they can't latch onto the Joe-mentum this time.

- Mrdseitzer

October 12, 2007 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who will TNR be endorsing? Too bad they can't latch onto the Joe-mentum this time. That's what you think.

- ratnerstar

October 12, 2007 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to mess it up by running for President. He's good an academy award, a Nobel Peace Prize, and probably gets to do what he wants when he wants to. The campaign trail, dialing for dollars, risking losing either in the primary or general, is just not worth it. Gore might like to campaign on behalf of someone, but I have a hard time thinking that would make any difference. His best bet is to continue doing what he's been doing: acting like an ex-President.

- stgla

October 12, 2007 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He should run. He would win. But he won't. And maybe, after all, he shouldn't: America doesn't deserve a President like him. I finally realized that this morning, listening to NPR talk about his Nobel. The news reader felt she should "balance" his freaking Nobel Prize with the ruling of some British judge that "discovered" six factual errors in "An Inconvenient Truth." It's clear that the MSM would again be ruthless to Gore-the-candidate. The same bunch that gives Hillary a pass, that maintained a stoic silence about Bush's BS from 9-12-2001 until 2006, wouldn't rest until they gutted him. "he's fat, he's wooden, his eyes rolled, he has a pool what a hypocrite." He's too good to lead this country. We deserve eight more years of dynastic, partisan leadership. And we're gonna get it.

- ryanmacd

October 12, 2007 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good commentary, stgla. Acting like an ex-President is exactly what Gore has been doing. You could say he's been doing it better than Clinton.

- Gabbage

October 12, 2007 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gore right now is the toast of Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, and the European left-leaning chatterati. He has a seat on Google's board. He jets around to Bel Air and Cannes and is feted with puff pieces in the left-leaning media. Everyone he meets tells him how wonderful he is and how he got more votes in Florida than W in 2000 and how the world would be a lovely place had he been POTUS etc. And he can cash out his GOOG options when and as he pleases, and have an inside track on just about any VC investment that's in any way connected to the people who backed GOOG (Andy Bechtolsheim, Mike Moritz, John Doerr). For all I know, he's got a bevy of Hollywood babes available to him as well for those occasions when La Tipper's not riding alongside him in the jet. And for this you expect the man to say goodbye to his GOOG stock and sweetheart investment opportunities and tramp across Iowa and eat rubber chicken and answer hostile questions about why NAFTA has failed utterly to stem the flood of illegal Mexican immigration, as he promised it would? You're not a member of Opus Dei, are you?

- teplukhin2you

October 12, 2007 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

. . . does Gore have anything going for him other than your enthusiastic support? Poll after poll shows that he can't win the nomination. I voted for Gore in 2000 and thought at the time that he would've made a terrific president, but there are not many scenarios in which he beats Clinton. Obama isn't even a factor, except insofar as he would add to the narrative (if Gore somehow won) of the Democrats tossing a woman and a black man overboard so they could nominate an old white guy. Which they won't. Gore just doesn't have the backing - not from the party infrastructure, and not from a plurality of the party. You guys got any evidence to the contrary?

- phargle

October 12, 2007 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Gore had gone for it 9 or even 6 months ago, he'd have had a good shot at being the front runner. HRC has proven too good and too efficient though, very tough for him to get in now. 1 year ago, I thought 'duh, a Gore/Obama ticket' because I thought HRC would stumble, but she hasn't, turns out she's a better candidate than I thought? Get in now? The media would trash him because they hate him and he'd have to face the built-up Clinton juggernaut. If she would've slipped and if people would've shown hesitancy about Obama, then he could've gotten in now, but that didn't happen. I agree with phargle, look at the data. I'm an Obama guy myself...

- mmathog

October 12, 2007 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The belief that a former senator from Tennesee will ride in to secure the nomination and win the presidency is apparently not strictly a Republican delusion.

- phargle

October 12, 2007 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilarious post. But you might have forgotten one thing: Gore takes himself very seriously as a world-historical figure. I suspect he truly believes the people who tell him he has an actual "responsibility" to run for president. If he bags his cushy life for Iowa's rubber chicken, it'll be out pure commitment to country/ego. Time will tell.

- ralphnelle

October 12, 2007 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You only do it if you're an ambitious freak, or you really believe that nobody else is really good enough and you have to. Like him or not, that is why Dean ran. Nobody else [besides Kucinich who was hopeless] opposed the war. If it weren't for Dean, Gore might have run then, but he didn't have to. Some other guy who had a decent shot and opposed the war was already out there, so he endorsed Dean. Whatever personal ambition Gore might have is pretty well-fed right now, and I just hope he endorses Obama or Edwards [who was pro war last time around, but is sufficiently chastised now] while there's still time to hurt Hillary. The very fact that he hasn't endorsed her yet looks like he won't.

- psantillana

October 12, 2007 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

means QUITE a lot coming from him.

- psantillana

October 12, 2007 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it would be hard to imagine, but could he be edwards' or obama's vp? would it put them over the top?

- eweiss

October 12, 2007 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hairshirt plus that wooden bed with all the upside down nails in it. He's a lifelong politician. As with every pol Al's ego is a ravenous beast unwilling to share its supper. If the man were to give up his Google options and fawning Hollywood minions and (largely unscrutinized) gas-guzzling carbon-scarfing personal transportation habits for VPOTUS, I'd conclude he was off his rocker.

- teplukhin2you

October 12, 2007 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...but it is fun to speculate. I love thinking about the absurd. One other wildly imaginative vpotus pick is Lieberman. He sure would solidify the Krauthammer faction on the right.

- eweiss

October 12, 2007 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

regardless, it ain't going to happen so it is all just idle speculation. I just don't get the Hillary Kool aid though. A lackluster speaker with a ton of political baggage, yeah lets nominate her. The only political figure she reminds me of is Lady Macbeth. If it is her against anyone but Rudy I am staying home. I won't be a willing participant in a train wreck.

- blackton

October 12, 2007 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a lost sheep Democrat, and I'd consider voting for Hillary. (It does help that she seems like she'd Thatcher anybody who messed with our country.) As far as political baggage goes, well, dogs don't bark at parked cars. She's smart, motivated and practical, and she can win. She's also serious, which makes her stand out in a Democratic field that projects unseriousness. Obama is increasingly appearing to be doing a test-run for his 2016 campaign. Edwards is so shallow, he's like a puddle barely held together by water tension. Richardson is a joke (with those of us in New Mexico as the punchline . . ). Also-rans like Biden are smart and have the right ideas, but are also-rans and will stay also-rans. Hillary, on the other hand, means business and it shows. I want a president who means business.

- phargle

October 12, 2007 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By "means business" do you mean "will do anything to get elected"? And by "dogs don't bark at parked cars" do you mean that she must have done at least something to deserve the hatred of so many? Lastly, do you believe that she is the only dem who can win? I think she's the only one who can lose, because she'll bring every republican to the polls, rain, sleet, snow, or hail.

- psantillana

October 13, 2007 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree psantillana, HRC guarantees high voter turnout which brings defeat into the question, almost any other nominee has the opposit effect.

- gregstolhand

October 13, 2007 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is the TNR consensus that Gore is the best candidate that the Dems can front. And whether he chooses to run or not is a question of how unselfish he chooses to be at this time in his life.

- hotshot22

October 13, 2007 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most TalkBackers would agree with joatsimeon's wicked observation that Gore "had a sure thing, and he blew it. He's the kid who got beat up and had his lunch money stolen, his face pushed in the toilet." We need someone with steel in his or her spine and first-rate political skills.

- teplukhin2you

October 13, 2007 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a politican, he has a "kick me" sign permanently stuck to his back. It makes me sick, but it's true. I loved Phargle's post about Senator Clinton - she is very serious biz isn't she? She destroyed her opposition in the debates and calmed alot of people out there about her. She's just plain Presidential in the best way. You may not love her, but you have to admit that you'd be in good hands. But I do get nervous with those negatives. Butchie has been warning us all not to measure the drapes now for awhile and I think he's right. The Republicans don't have much to live for except to thrwart Senator Clinton. That's enough for this crowd.

- Wandreycer1

October 13, 2007 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HRC certainly has the spine Tep refers to. Off topic and maybe more relevant to Tep's talkback on the Hitchens post, given Peretz's record with recruitment across fields I'm surprised Teps hasn't penned a full-length TNR article as yet.

- hotshot22

October 13, 2007 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...wouldn't it be nice if Gore endorses Biden? Unlike Clinton and Obama, he's someone who might actually be able to beat the Republicans running, if he can avoid his occasional gaffes... and he'd be a good president... Dems gotta stop the navel-gazing...

- LISAH

October 13, 2007 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have more than a touch of the S. Ackermann/M. Kelly in me. Doubt I'd last too long in Marty's world.

- teplukhin2you

October 13, 2007 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

paying attention to the race yet. Its still preseason as far as most people are concerned. For this reason, I don't think its too late for Gore to enter and win. And the Lady Macbeth line about Hilliary is apt. She just comes off cold and calculating. A non-issue candidate. I'll vote for her but I really don't want to. I think most people feel the way I do about this. They don't like Hilliary, but she's the front runner. Obama's idealistic but unlikely because people want experience. That and hope is no substitute for a plan. People act like Obama was the first one to come up with his brand of "new politics" but he isn't. You can either run with the system or against it. Its nothing new, he's just more consistent than most. Edwards just doesn't strike me as a leader and my feeling is that he's a bit of a phony. For all of the talk of Hillary's political juggernaut, I don't see what that amounts too. As I see it, Gore has all of Hillary's strengths and none of her weaknesses. He's experienced and has as much if not more name recognition than Clinton. But he isn't hated the way Clinton is. He's passionate when he's talking about something he cares about. I think he can ride the Inconvenient Truth type passion on the campaign trail for at least a while. And its not like he can be painted as an enviro-nut now. He's right and the whole world basically agrees. He's been right on almost all the major issues of the day unlike Hillary, especially on Iraq, which is what appeals to people who like Obama. He's a celebrity, which will win him votes just on name recognition alone. And he's a white male. This shouldn't matter but it probably does. This just feels like such a no brainer that its frustrating that its even a question. And Rudy's the new Bush. If we nominate Hillary and get him, we've brought it on ourselves. As far as Hillary supporters out there, I just have to ask: What is it that you like about her? Her ability to not choke in debates just reflects her ability not to say anything stupid by not saying anything at all. This makes her presidential? Someone please explain her appeal to me.

- mwr4z

October 13, 2007 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also read Evgenia Peretz's VF essay about Gore. It's enough to make you sick. Gore was pillored by the media "for sport" -- not on substance, not on the merits, but for sport! Here's an election that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and here are these characters, trying to outdo each other with clever calumnies, untroubled by the truth, untroubled by the consequences.

And now, Miss Peretz "finds that many in the media are re-assessing their 2000 coverage." Now they're re-assessing?

I know it's intemperate, and one shouldn't be ad hominem and all that, but this supports what I've asserted in other diatribes here, that by definition journalists are bastards. One says, Well, it's what we have to put up with to have a free press. Really? How about having to put up with 8 years of the worst presidency in history? For the "sport" of a pack of salaried smartasses.

The man's right, Gore doesn't need this again.

- jm_rice

October 13, 2007 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dunno JM-rice - I see the same old same old in that department. Too many of the old school media (refuse to call them mainstream anymore, because they are quickly losing that title) still remain as petty and criminally shallow as ever. I haven't read anything that sounded remorseful or even thoughtful on the topic from any of the nitwit reporters covered the VF article. They all sounded unrepentent to me. I hope Gore doesn't lower himself into that muck again. He does not deserve it. Are McNeil & Lerher still around? What ever happened to them? They were so great.

- Wandreycer1

October 13, 2007 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If he stays out of it, he can put a LOT of pressure on whoever wins in '08 to take serious steps on climate change. If he endorses one candidate and that candidate doesn't win, he's lost some amount of power to affect the direction of the next admin on that issue. I just don't see any benefit in it for him. Obviously, he endorses the democratic nominee once one has been established, but why do anything before then?

- ramboorider

October 14, 2007 at 6:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually one could argue, now that avenues of power and influence on his own terms on a global stage have become even more plausible the peace prize in effect has neutralized the chances of a Gore presidency.

- hotshot22

October 14, 2007 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It looks like Senator Obama has been reading / talking to Amory Lovins. His new energy position paper has some of those talking points and is full of the wholistic thinking needed to bring about the necessary changes. The most important piece is that Obama has the ability to communicate what needs to be said and lead, even when it's difficult. Remember, he went to Detroit to talk about these issues with the auto industry, which is one of the biggest obstacles to actual progress. If Gore supports anyone. it'll be Obama.

- ultimax

October 14, 2007 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd love to see him endorse Obama, but by staying neutral he is best positioned to influence future policy. And, of course, his 2004 endorsement didn't help Dean any, but Gore is much more popular with Democratic primary voters than he was in 2004. It's hard for me to see him endorsing anyone else; maybe he's warmed up to Edwards since 2004 but I doubt. My guess is he endorses Obama, or endorses not at all in the primary.

- armadorsky

October 14, 2007 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a republican, I'd love to see Gore endorse Obama, putting a spike in Mrs. Clinton's march to the White House, and giving Rudy a better chance. You all have no idea how idiotic you sound in your assumption that anyone you don't deign to know takes the Nobel seriously.

- grasmere10

October 14, 2007 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looking back on his last two endorsements - Dean and Lieberman - I think Gore might find it prudent to remain neutral.

- tdwis

October 15, 2007 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close