Thursday, July 24, 2008

Al Gore for Vice President of the United States!

I think I have posted this sentiment before, but what the heck. If you don't keep repeating something you are for, people forget it. Anyway, occasionally one reads of mentions that Gore is under consideration, but mostly a bunch of others like Hillary or Edwards or Kathleen Sebelius (and Webb and Strickland before they withdrew themselves) get debated. Whenever I mention Gore to people they seem to frown and view it as somehow unacceptable, getting responses like "what does he bring?" Last I checked the only other candidate who may actually help Obama anywhere (Ohio and Michigan maybe, and the Carolinas) is Edwards, who might be my second pick (heck I was for him for president before he dropped out). But Gore is supported by everybody in the party and might help bring in Florida. There is no question he is experienced and his appearance at the Netroots convention was a big hit by most accounts.

The really big fly in the ointment is that he probably does not want to do it. But, I have not heard any absolute denials out of him. Sure, he did not run for president. But that would have entailed going up against the Clinton machine, which we have seen is a pretty unpleasant thing to do. Running as VP with Obama looks a lot easier. And, it would show serious leadership ability if Obama could talk him into it. Heck, who is there out there that is better than Gore? I cannot name one, not even Edwards. Al Gore for Vice President!!!

18 comments:

Brown Chicken Brown Cow said...

You are serious???

Just what your Democrats need...another disillusioned wanna be running in circles and making fake movies. I'm glad you pointed out just now that you also believe the world to be flat...and relatively out of touch with reality. AMAZING ! ! !

Alex R said...

Barkley, if you're looking for an absolute denial, try “I have a personal term limit. Only two terms as VP.”

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

bcbcs,

Yes,I am very serious. "Disillusioned wannabe"? Now I would accept that he probably had some serious disillusionment, at least for awhile, after he lost the presidential election in 2000, even though he won the popular vote. That weird outcome "disillusioned" quite a few people with American "democracy."

However, we are talking about a guy who was right about Iraq (and in synch with the likely prez candidate on that one) and has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his movie and related lectures. That you describe the movie as "fake" and "out of touch with reality" suggests to me that you may be a bit out of touch yourself. There are some misstatements in the movie, but most of it is on the money. Certainly none of the minor errors in it are on the order of declaring the world to be flat.

And, if you are a global warming "skeptic," I can assure you that in fact I have been closely associated with several of the most serious such individuals for over three decades, having even worked with some of them, so I know their arguments (nont all of which are baloney). But, a rather telling point is that there is no unified story or viewpoint coming out of them, and some of them have thrown in the towel and now agree that global warming is occurring, after decades of saying it is not, although there clearly remain differences over how much is likely to happen and what should be done about it.

Indeed the more amusing view coming out of some of them, such as uber-skeptic Fred Singer, is that "global warming is inevitable and unstoppable, so do nothing!" this after denying it was happening at all until about a year ago.

Jack said...

"However, we are talking about a guy who was right about Iraq (and in synch with the likely prez candidate on that one) and has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his movie and related lectures."

Barkley, I don't at all disagree with your sentiment, but when did those qualities ever mean much to the voting public. Unfortunately,
Gore is like the guy who'd been falsely accused of some bad deed. No amount of evidence to the contrary will make him whole again in the eyes of a jaundiced society.
Too many people want to believe the worst, and the ideals that Gore now represents are only wholesome good sense rather than viril hysterics.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Well first, I did not see what alex r had reported. So, that may rule it out, but Obama can still give it a try.

jack,

Back on maxspeak I once posted about the idiocy of US politics where somebody who runs for prez as a party nominee and loses is then viewed as dead meat, although that did not used to be the case (Nixon lost 1960, renominated in 1968 and won, the last case). In other countries, party leaders run many times all the time, no big deal. That this is silly is seen by the fact that it is OK to run for the nomination but lose. Why should those losers be better than the person who got the nomination?

However, I think Gore is the exception that proves the rule. He is viewed by many as having actually, or at least morally, won, with his popular victory. There is a view that the election was stolen by the Supreme Court, and given what an awful prez Bush has been, this has made Gore look all the better, especially as he has been proven right about so many things.

So, I disagree. I think he now has an excellent public image. There is no stronger VP candidate for Obama, but he just plain may be unavailable by his own decision. Too bad, if so.

Jack said...

Barkley,
I don't believe that Gore's problem as a candidate would be that he "lost" his last time out. It is more the problem of the image created by a media intent on never admitting its own faults and deceptions. The media beat his brains out the first time around and almost certainly would pick up where it had left off in an effort to justify its original sins.

I seriously doubt that Obama's organization would want to take the chance of hooking up with a running mate that has had that level of animus directed at him in the recent past and, to some extent, continues to this very day.
As I previously noted, the public is gullible and can be led to believe a scenario on the flimsiest of evidence. It's unfortunate that slander is not more easily prosecuted in this country.

Jack said...

Oh, I should have pointed to the obvious proof of what I'm suggesting is the unfortunate case in American
public opinion shaping. Re-read the first comment posted on this specific thread. That person uses an appropriate pseudonym; the brain of a chicken and the stubbornness of a cow. Granted that it's only one comment on this thread, but on a site that would normally interest people with better good sense.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

jack,

I disagree. A lot of the stuff the media accused him of now looks silly and most people know it is. Uptight? Not anymore. Heck, he misstated in the first debate with Bush where and when he met the FEMA Chief? Heck, at least he met the FEMA Chief, unlike you know who.

Also, I do not remember all kinds of deep hostility to him. There was deep hostility to the Clintons, and some of that rubbed off on him as Bill's VP. But that link is certainly gone by now, other than the memory that he was in act a competent VP, certainly a pleasant contrast with Cheney.

Just who is it who is super hostile to him other than some global warming skeptic lunatics?

Shag from Brookline said...

Let's say that Gore is nominated as VP and the Obama-Gore ticket wins. Will Obama constantly be looking over his shoulder? Will Gore be bored? Will voters look to Gore more than to Obama when serious issues surface because of Gore's greater experience? How might each "plan" for 2012? From Gore's standpoint, this would not be a promotion; compare this to the corporate sector: up or out. An unrestrained Gore may better suit American interests.

Jack said...

Barkley,
Shag's point is a good one, especially that Gore could be more effective outside of government, as he has been for the past eight years. You've got a kinder expectation of the voter than do I.
Your recollection of the media's unkind attitude toward Gore seems more restrained than is mine. While the pundit class may be holding back the ill will that it showed to Gore in the past is, I think, only due to his absence from the poliltical stage.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Well, I think it is likely that among other things Gore's desire to speak openly and enjoying his fame and popularity will keep him from accepting an offer, especially now that he has made this statement about "two terms is enough." But I do not think there would be a problem with him looking over Obama's shoulder. Obama is not like Bush, who could not keep Slovenia and Slovakia straight when he ran in 2000. Obama is clearly very smart and knowledgeable, and holding his own with a definite heavy like Gore would just add to his gravitas. So, I would still urge him to seriously invite Gore as the first choice, once it gets down to it, even though it looks like Gore is very unlikely to accept.

And, maybe the press would start whomping on Gore, but I seriously doubt we would see anything like we saw in 2000, especially as he would just be VP candidate rather than the presidential candidate.

sTiVo said...

Sorry, Barkley, but this is silly.

No way in hell does Gore accept - and not out of any disrespect to Obama. He didn't even run for President this year, he's already BEEN Vice President and no doubt isn't eager to repeat that and he has a bigger stage as the grise eminence Goracle, so why would he do it?

You seem to accept that Gore won't accept but I disagree with you that this would help Obama's stature. The press will play the silly angle to the hilt and it will hurt rather than help Obama's chances when he refuses.

I'm not saying this to attack Gore, but I think it's a waste of time - though that could be said about much of what we all do on the Internets.

Jack said...

While one post does not prove the point, Tom Bozzo over at the Angry Bear alerts us to just how much of an ass some media types can make of themselves. Megan McCardle on:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/gored.php proves for all the world to see how half-assed an media ass can be. Just when Megan became enough of an expert to pass any critical judgment on any scientific issue is left unstated. Rather than quote any one part of the offensive piece, it is total drivel, it should be read in its original form. Then write to the editors of Atlantic.com and ask them when they or she earned the right to bring up any scientific issue without attribution to a scientist.

Jack said...

Sorry, I should have noted that the short critique by McCardle is aimed directly at Gore's credibility.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

stivo,

I suspect the invitation could be made relatively discretely without everybody and his brother and sister finding out about it and turning it into some big shameful thing. And, actually, I do not see why it would be a shameful thing. Gore would be a great candidate, and I do not see Obama being hurt by asking a great candidate. Everyone has heard by now that Gore does not want it for various reasons, so why should it be so shameful or awful if Obama asks and gets turned down?

Jack said...

"..so why should it be so shameful or awful if Obama asks and gets turned down?"

Why on Earth would a strong candidate want to start the final phase of a campaign with a rejection from a strong VP candidate, if that's what Gore is? Gore stands a better chance of making a place for himself in the American consciousness by staying out of this race and continuing to fan the flame of global warming awareness. It wouldn't hurt his credibility to start to concretize his ideas regarding a solution, but that's his thing not Obama's.

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Jack,

Please do not confuse what is good for Gore with what is good for Obama with what is good for the US or the world. Being turned down by a strong possible VP strikes me as being not nearly as damaging as being turned down by a weak possible VP, and everybody would understand given Gore's very publicly stated positions. It may well be that it is best for Gore to say no, and he probably will if asked. Is it good for the US or the world? Well, that is a more complicated matter.

Jack said...

Barkley,
If it hasn't been obvious in the recent past I'll make it so now. I tend to agree with most of what you have to say. This issue is a peculiar anomaly to that similarity of ideology. I just don't see Gore in the same light. A potentially good government executive he may very well be, but I don't put him ahead of the pack. To his credit he has taken a firm stand on the global warming issue. He has limited his public voice to that specific argument. Being a key member of the Executive Branch requires a good deal more in the way of public debate.

Global warming is certainly important, but not more pressing than war, health care, the economy of the US in general and the issue of a better political system. Maybe that last item should be called good old good government. We need a lot of that to accomplish the others. Where is Gore on these other issues? He is too lukewarm for my taste. Regardless, he is still a risk as a candidate because of the past skirmishes. Granted much of the critics were little more than false prophets carrying a torch.