Gore in 2008?

With all of the apprehension on the left over a potential Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy, primary voters are looking for an alternative. Gore is being very coy about whether he would run in 2008, and I personally think he is handling this correctly. He's getting great press discussing an issue that he is really, really passionate about, which allows people to see the "real" Al Gore that people claimed was missing in 2000, all the while avoiding being characterized as another "politician." Speaking from his heart, which is precisely what critics said Gore failed to do in 2000, has become something that Gore has become good at.

While certainly Gore did not run the best campaign in 2000, I do believe he was stuck trying to thread a pretty thin needle -- his boss (whom he had loyally stood by) had just been impeached for sexual misconduct, alienating Southern and culturally conservative moderate voters, and some nut on the left was screaming that there was no difference between Gore and Bush (and there's added irony, given Gore's passion for the environment, that Nader was the Green party nominee). And the press hammered him, completely unfairly, for months on end, playing right into Rove's playbook of turning Gore into an untrustworthy liar (just like someone else who Gore worked with).

Yet Gore won. Or should have won. If there had been no butterfly ballot. If the Supreme Court justices hadn't gotten two votes for President that year.

In sum: I think Gore is a really intriguing option for Democrats in '08. Enjoy this excellent recent profile of him from New York magazine.
- posted by Joshua @ 2:22 PM