Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Gore, Retry, FailWhy the "New" Al Gore can't get elected.

By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 7:06 PM ET

Who knew Al Gore could be such fun? He's the toast of Cannes and was hilarious on Saturday Night Live. He's also Topic A in political conversation. A lot of Democrats start to sound a bit giddy when the subject of a Gore presidential run in 2008 comes up. Even with recent troubles in the GOP, many of them have been preoccupied with the weakness of their leaders and the party's uncertain future. When discussion turns to Gore, everyone gets excited.

At the center of the Gore boomlet is the New Al Gore. He's full of the vision and ass-kicking clarity for which Democratic activists are thirsting. Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, has praised the change, calling him "passionate, eloquent, and utterly suffused with energy." Arianna Huffington got the bug in Cannes: "When people are exposed to the new Gore—authentic, funny, self-deprecating—you can almost feel their relief and surprise as they suddenly come to face to face with what a real leader could be."

This has got to be stirring for a guy who was essentially laughed out of town after losing the 2000 election. But Gore has yet to respond to the groundswell, according to those I've talked to who know Gore well. He's happy doing what he's doing and doesn't want to get drawn back into politics. "What Al Gore is doing now is living the life he always wanted to lead," says his former campaign manager, Donna Brazile. "He's a leading intellectual. He's talking about global warming. He's a venturecrat. He's leading the life I think a person like Al Gore would want to lead."

There are lots of other reasons that Gore probably shouldn't run, often articulated by inside-the-beltway types. A lot of Democrats still have sour feelings about a nominee who blew a winnable election. Gore never liked the day-to-day work of politics (as opposed to governing) and was a lousy campaigner. He struggled to beat a weak Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primaries and lost to George Bush (sort of) with the wind of peace and prosperity at his back. In polls, voters still react to him as negatively as they do to Hillary Clinton, or even more so. He may provide a nice contrast to George Bush now, but Bush won't be on the ballot, and in 2008 the Republican nominee is likely to be running against Bush, too.

Gore hasn't shut the door on a candidacy. "I'm not planning to run," he has said. "There are other ways to serve." He's not planning to run but that doesn't leave out the possibility that he could be convinced to run. This makes sense. If you're going to be a draft candidate, you need to look reluctant. You need to let the cheers grow into a roar before you open your hotel window to speak to the crowd.

I will admit that I like the idea of Gore running for president. I'm a sucker for authenticity and prefer a candidate who speaks his mind (even my editor has made fun of me for this failing). But it seems to me that the hype about the New Gore poses a problem for him should he eventually decide to run: He can't sustain the authenticity that is fueling his bandwagon.

It's not that Gore is inherently dull. (And judiciousness could be a plus after the Bush years.) The problem is that the activists and bloggers most approving of Gore's "authenticity" also seem the least likely to allow any deviation from their definition of it. Campaigns require tactical compromises and prioritizing, even to achieve noble goals, and those acts are often seen as inauthentic and weak. Even Howard Dean, who is often praised for his genuineness, tailored his views on fiscal policy and entitlement reform to appeal to liberals in his party, a disconnect with his more conservative past. Gore's assessment of the last presidential elections suggest he still believes campaigns must be won by moving to the middle, a notion some in his party abhor. He knows about political shading. It's why he can craft that coy language about running in 2008. But if he does too much of this, he will disappoint his new allies.

Talk about the New Gore also builds upon a structural flaw of his last candidacy: Does he know his own mind? If what we're seeing now is the real Al Gore, why was he so easily swayed last time by advisers and pollsters bearing bad advice? If authenticity is just a political gambit, it's hardly authentic. The Old Gore vs. New Gore angle is likely to become a theme of the coverage if Gore runs. The press will remind us again and again about the 2000 campaign's earth-tone suits and the Great Dane kiss of Tipper at the convention and all the other inauthentic things he did to tailor his behavior to show people what he thought they wanted to see. The press will watch closely for signs of a relapse.

Hillary Clinton may solve this problem, at least to some extent. Gore may have no opportunity to return to his old ways, because if he runs, the opening for him will be to her left. That would act as a guardrail. If his populist heart ever faltered, political expediency would kick in, keeping him in the "New Gore" posture as he offered himself as a reformed character to those in the party who have a passionate dislike of Clintonian triangulation.

But crusading liberal is hardly who Al Gore really is. He long supported welfare reform, free-trade, and gave a speech promoting faith-based institutions in 2000 that was as supportive of them as George Bush was. How will he handle those old positions? Will he blow them off completely and risk looking like a hypocrite? Or will he revert to the trimming of the Old Al Gore? How will he respond to questions about a speech he gave in Saudi Arabia in which he very authentically criticized treatment of Arabs in the United States? When you're a candidate, the truth you spoke as a private citizen can become awfully inconvenient.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Al Gore on Slate's home page by Hector Mata/Agence France-Presse.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

In 1960, Vice-President Richard Nixon lost a razor thin presidential election to John F. Kennedy. When he lost the California gubernatorial in graceless fashion shortly thereafter (with his infamous "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" concession speech to reporters) it was widely assumed he was washed up as a politician.

But Nixon hung around, became an elder statesman of his party (without the political baggage that comes with holding office), and in 1968 the "New Nixon" won the Republican nomination and later on, in another close election, the Presidency. [...]

What changed between 1960 and 1968 was not so much Nixon as the United States. The Vietnam War and its accompanying protests, race riots, assassinations, the rise of the counterculture, culminating in the chaos of the Democratic convention, convinced a majority of Americans that something had gone horribly awry since Nixon lost the presidency in 1960. What they wanted wasn't so much a New Nixon as a return to the days before the country went off the rails, back when Eisenhower was President and Nixon was his Veep.

The same dynamic is powering the Draft Gore movement. Life in the US under George W. Bush has been an endless series of disasters---9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the deficit---that make many people long for the days of peace and prosperity back when Clinton was President and Gore was his Veep. Gore doesn't have to anything to establish his likability as a candidate, he needs only to appear competent in opposition to a Republican party drowning in cronyism, corruption and incompetence, and tied to an unpopular war. Gore's wonkishness actually becomes an asset in the wake of an administration undone by ideologues and political hacks, just as Nixon's nastiness became an asset in a country looking for law and order in 1968.

Best of all, a certain Ms. Harris won't be counting the votes in Florida anymore.

--Utek1

(To reply, click here.)

 Dickerson is just repeating the press corps scripts that seek to justify their outrageously unfair treatment of Gore ever since 1999. Dickerson tells us that the "structural flaw" of Gore's 2000 candidacy was that he didn't "know his own mind." He gives two examples--Gore wore brown suits and kissed his wife in public.

Gore sure has a lot to answer for! How will I ever be able to forgive him for those earth tones?

Al Gore hasn't "reinvented" himself or found an authenticity that he previously lacked. In fact Gore is now what he has always been-- a decent, dedicated, and intelligent public servant who is nearly always right on major public policy issues.

--CitizenCain

(To reply, click here.)

Gore is well known as a "Career Politician" and is little different than many other "career" candidates tossed our way on the national stage by the political parties. Somewhere along the way to that "political career" both reality and common-sense are jettisoned from their personas. [...]

If we reflect back, it's easy to remember that Al Gore didn't actually bring much brilliance or impact to the National Stage from his role riding the second seat during his 8 year tenure. In hindsight, the reality is that Gore barely musters past Quayle on the scale of VP ineffectiveness overall in the big scheme of things.

Gore re-inventing himself now in a posture for another run for President is mere showmanship and we should remember that at it's core, he remains the same original "Gore" that under-whelms without pause. I must admit that this same deceptive "re-inventing" phenomena goes for any of the politicans grooming themselves and their pandering for the 2008 dash for the White House.

So, as far as Gore sequels go, I'll pass on Gore Reloaded, and no I won't wait for it to come out on video either...

--MrMike

(To reply, click here.)

Where might [Dickerson] get the idea that Dubya won't be on any ballots in 2008? Of course, he won't in any literal way, but it will be hard to say that a vote for anyone running against the damage done by the BUSH administration won't get the very best coverage.

The reluctant Gore could be the man for that job - running against the damage.

--PatINJapan

(To reply, click here.)

I think the bigger problem isn't that the press will remind people of the "inauthenticities" of the 2000 campaign. Rather, the press won't remind people that these "inauthenticities" were manufactured and invented by the press, themselves, based on no more sourcing than a Bush campaigner said it.

Take, for instance, the claim that Naomi Wolf told him to wear earth-tone suits. It didn't happen. No, not that he didn't wear the suit. That he was cajoled by Naomi Wolf or any other campaign manager to do so. Or that he claimed he invented the Internet. He never said that. Or that he claimed he and Tipper were the source for Love Story. He never said that, either. Or that he claimed to have found Love Canal. He never said that, either.

Oh, people THINK he said those things and there will be no doubt that the press will remind people of that fact while never bothering to mention that none of those things were true, that they were part and parcel of the reason that people think they're true, and never doing anything to counter those impressions. And when the Republican candidate's side brings up those things, the press won't bother to call them on it.

And that's why Gore can't run. He'll have to work his way through the lies from eight years ago and all the while doing it, he'll look like he's playing sour grapes and opening himself up to attacks of, "He can't get over the 2000 election."

--Rrhain

(To reply, click here.)

(5/25)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.