Why not Gore?

T.A. Barnhart

By January 2005, it seemed obvious to me that Al Gore was not going to run for President. Like millions who had been inspired by his post-2000 career — his fiery speeches against Bush in 2004 and, of course, his "An Inconvenient Truth" campaign to save the planet — I had hoped he would seize the opportunity to win again the office that had been stolen from him by an immoral Supreme Court decision. But for a variety of reasons, Gore chose not to run. Like millions of other voters, I began looking elsewhere for a candidate. Deciding to support Barack Obama was an easy, and, for me, obvious choice. I am damned pleased I was more prescient than most people. (Yay me.)

One of the more enjoyable sideshows of the summers campaign, of course, is the guessing over who Obama and McCain will pick for their running mates. I'm hoping McNasty picks the Exorcist, Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal: someone from the certifiably fanatic wing of the GOP is certain to put Obama into office. (On a serious note, however, despite Jindal's manifest shortcomings, his nomination would represent a great moment for Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in this country; the wrong candidate, to be sure, but a step towards the national recognition and credibility they deserve.)

For Obama, there are a host of Democrats who would make tremendous running mates: Sibelius, Kaine, Richardson, Clark (who I think is the front-runner at this point) and more. But while watching Al Gore endorse Obama in Detroit last night, I found myself asking: "Why not Gore?"

First, the objections, and the first objection is that he probably doesn't want the damn job. He's done it once before, and though given unprecedented responsibilities by his friend Bill Clinton, he was still "just" the Vice-president. Given his current stature — Oscar-winner and Nobel laureate — and the freedom to follow his own path, why would he give that up to be the kid's back-up?

Well, this is not just any kid. This is a young man who may be the leader who leads America from its current despair to the kind of bright future Al Gore undoubtedly wishes for his nation (and towards which Gore himself could have led us starting eight years ago). But even if Gore sees the value as being Obama's running mate and partner, many Americans may not want any part of the Clinton Administration returning. Gore has, of course, been a source of ridicule on the right for over a decade, but for many Americans, his recent career has "rehabilitated" him in their eyes. I don't think the kind of half-ass treatment he received form the media in 2000 would be tolerated this year. He's not that Al Gore anymore.

On the plus side, I see several compelling reasons for Obama to select Gore. One — and this is crystal clear as you watch the video from Detroit — is that he has become a dynamic campaigner. I think he always was, but he listened to a so-called strategy team in 2000 that brought out his absolute lamest. Watching him in Detroit, you hear fire, power, humor and passion. Sure, he'll bring that to the campaign without being Obama's running mate, but the added cachet of being on the ticket will add even greater strength to his already tremendous abilities. He will be a regular presence on the news, and no matter who the Rs pick to shore-up McCain, the VP debate will likely be as one-sided as Bentsen-Quayle.

One of the qualities many are calling for in Obama's choice is a counter-balance to his youth and supposed inexperience. With Gore, Obama gets more than an elder statesman. Gore brings maturity to the ticket, of course, but not the stodgy ancient history uber-maturity of Sam Nunn, whom some are irrationally touting. Gore has credibility with young Americans because of "Truth," of course. They know he is not merely a visionary for the gravest danger facing the planet — he is the Gore-acle, a moniker of which he should be proud — but also someone who actually cares. "Truth" may be frightening and funny, but it is also revealing of a vital truth: Al Gore really does care. Not merely about the issue, but the people of Earth who face an unspeakable future if we do not act soon to change our course. Al Gore has an appeal now that he lacked in 2000, and it's an appeal that is complementary to Obama's.

I also believe the young voters who were not around for the Clinton years and don't remember the debacle of 2000 will view Gore as a fresh face. One of the great things about post-millenial irony is that old guys can get a new start. It's as if Gore 2000 and Gore 2008 are two different people. Watching him in 2004 and in Detriot, it's a thought that's hard to deny.

And those voters who won't reject him out-of-hand because he's a Democrat or because he has been in the same room as the Clintons will give him a second chance. Most Americans now believe, I think, that even if Gore was not robbed in 2000 (and a huge number believes exactly that), the country made a terrible mistake in not electing him. To take only two minor issues, the war and global warming, Americans understand how much better off we'd be today under a Gore Administration (added bonus: no Liebermann in the Senate).

One thought that must be borne in mind in considering a vice-president, of course, is: Can we see that person rising to the presidency? Either in the case of tragedy or as a successor in eight years' time? I know that I would trust Al Gore as I would trust few others to lead the country in much the same way Barack Obama will. Should he be forced to take office in that unthinkable way, I believe he would shepherd the nation through what would be one of the darkest periods in our history. Al Gore would see us through, and he would then build on Obama's hope.

But I don't think he would run in 2016, and that is, frankly, something I find myself wanting in a vice-presidential nominee: Someone not likely to use the office to jump-start a presidential run. By the time we get into Obama's sixth year and necessarily start thinking of who we want to succeed him, I would like to be able to start from scratch and not have the choice pre-determined by who is the veep. In 2004, we had no idea that the Illinois state Senator making the keynote address at the Democratic Convention would be the nominee next time around. How can we foresee now who will be poised to take leadership of the party and nation in 2016? I like the idea of a vice-president who is there to do that job and not to prepare for the step up.

Listen to the whole speech if you haven't yet; it's only 15 minutes. The lines about a "T in your BLT" and "even cats and dogs know..." are wonderful. As you watch, think of what you know about Al Gore: He's incredibly smart, he knows government and many of the leaders of Congress, he's absolutely dedicated to saving our planet (from us), he knows how to communicate effectively, he was against the war from the very beginning, and when it comes to a national campaign — well, kids, he's been through this shit before. He knows what to expect and he knows what it takes. To me, even if he is older and a bit heavier, he seems fresher and more alive than in 2000.

I can picture an Obama-Gore ticket easily, the bright young man carrying the promise of a new future and the proven elder statesman providing gravitas and wisdom. Yes, there are reasons not to pick Gore, but given all the reasons for picking him, I say, why not?

Obama-Gore 2008. I like the sound of that. I like the look of that.

By T.A. Barnhart June 17, 2008