WaxWorks
|
Friday, May 26, 2006
Gore Got More
Paul Krugman touches upon Gore and his movie today, and, as usual, is right on:
But "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't just about global warming, of course.
It's also about Mr. Gore. And it is, implicitly, a cautionary tale about what's
been wrong with our politics.
Why, after all, was Mr. Gore's popular-vote margin in the 2000 election
narrow enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that neglects
the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule misses a
key part of the story. Why were those journalists so determined to jeer Mr.
Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the importance
of global warming, many years before any other major political figure: his
earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious
analysis.
And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates' clothing,
their mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear
advantage (and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and
dishonest).
I won't join the sudden surge of speculation about whether "An Inconvenient
Truth" will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a
powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the
country.
Since 2000, we've seen what happens when people who aren't interested in
the facts, who believe what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama
bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of
course, we've done nothing about global warming.
But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are
we — by which I mean both the public and the press — ready for political leaders
who don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call for
responsible policies? That's a test of national character. I wonder whether
we'll pass.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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.
