A second rate liberal pundit, John Nichols, succombs to the Gore-for-Prez delusion:"...the inconvenient truth is that never has the man who might yet be president needed to more seriously consider his personal legacy - not to mention the small matter of his potential to make the world anew - than now."There is, after all, the matter of the open space at the end of what is now the most remarkable resume of anyone seeking - or considering seeking - the presidency.
"Let's review...
"Son of a great senator.
Harvard graduate, with honors.
Vietnam veteran.
Award-winning investigative journalist.
Congressman.
Senator.
Vice President.
Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.
Best-selling author.
Environmental activist.
Academy Award winner.
"And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner...As resumés go, that is one for the top of the pile.
"But it begs the question: Shouldn't a man who has gotten this far be thinking about how to finish the journey?
"And isn't the last stop the Oval Office?" (1)
Give me a frigging break. An Academy Award helps qualify someone for president?
Rocky won an Academy Award. Why didn't Nichols mention the Emmy?
And give me a break on the Nobel Peace Prize, which already went to one of the biggest war criminals of the 20th c, Henry Kissinger.
Another frigging break: Best selling author qualifies? Stephen King and Jaqueline Susann are best selling authors.
Another: Being a congressman? Convicted felon and jailbird Duke Cunningham was a congressman.
Another: Senator? Psycho alcoholic witch hunter Joe McCarthy was a senator.
Nichols fails to evaluate any of the items he lists on Gore's resume. In fact, he doesn't care about evaluating anything. He is constructing a liberal dream, a phantom to satisfy his need for a savior. That has nothing to do with reality, including the difference between Gore's role in popularizing the cause of a movement, where he has enjoyed much success, and that of a politician, where he has a record of mediocre performance and failure.
Contrast Nichol's blather in the
Nation with the opinion of a rather more soulful thinker, Bob Herbert, of the
NY Times, also sympathetic to Gore, but not so susceptible to liberal self hypnosis:
"Yesterday began with the gratifying news that Al Gore, derided by George H.W. Bush as the 'Ozone Man,' had won the Nobel Peace Prize."The first thing media types wanted to know was whether this would prompt Mr. Gore to elbow his way into the presidential campaign. That’s like asking someone who’s recovered from a heart attack if he plans to resume smoking.
"Mr. Gore, who won an Academy Award for his documentary on global warming...knows better than anyone else how toxic and downright idiotic presidential politics has become.
"...Mr. Gore knows the system is in trouble, and not just because of the way he lost in 2000. The last time I spoke to him, a few months ago, he said: 'Having served in the White House with the Gingrich Congress, and having watched the best of intentions so often turned into small changes ballyhooed as revolutionary, sometimes having no lasting mark, I really do believe that fixing the dynamic of democracy is an urgent task.'
"Al Gore is a serious man confronted by a political system that is not open to a serious exploration of important, complex issues. He knows it.
'“What politics has become,' he said, with a laugh and a tinge of regret, 'requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I have found in short supply.'” (2)
So Herbert sets forth a major reason not to run, but he and Nichols both avoid a crucial consideration: for Al Gore to return to politics, he must risk the very fair criticism that his role in the cause of global warming was a stepping stone to the presidency, a means to reinvent his political identity, thereby undermining if not poisoning the credibility of the cause and of his efforts on its behalf.
But Al Gore himself offers yet another reason against returning to politics:
“Like I said, I’m a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse.” (3)
Gore said that in May of 2006 (i would appreciate any earlier citations) and it is likely not so much a joke or hyperbole as it is a confession of the nature of his life, a view of politics as disease and of his part in it, an addiction---like that of any alcoholic, smoker, or compulsive gambler who must guard against relapse.
But there is another equally important aspect of Al Gore's personality for the notion of which i acknowledge credit to scattered references concerning reports that Naomi Wolf---herself a contradictory figure---accepted $15,000 a month in salary to help groom Gore for his 2000 run. That grooming seems to have involved her notion that Gore was a beta male. (4)
Now, alphas of any gender are as susceptible to satirization, caricature, and even ridicule as betas, but usually they are not so easily dismissed; some glue of their value, even when they are resented or detested, usually attaches. Al Gore is and has been easily dismissed. It's variously reported that Hillary, who is smart and an alpha, out-vp'd him, but even if she didn't, his failure to rise in that office is remarkable. I suspect Gore is a natural beta, like the pup or cub that you can spot in a litter. He is not a beta of circumstantial rank, biding his time to challenge the old alpha. He knows this, and he is going to avoid essential contests and, if he must engage, lose them on some fundamental level.
That is why this nominal environmentalist, during eight years in the Clinton White House, while the earth was warming, could not extend gas mileage by one fraction of one inch, why, in the Senate, with the enlisted enhancements of Tipper, his great moral crusade was a silly war on Rock and Roll, and why, at the convention, his long kiss of said Tipper seemed so staged and clumsy: betas aren't supposed to breed.
Like many professors, ministers, and managers of beta persuasion or heredity, Gore has functioned best in uncontested venues of personal effort, away from adversarial arenas, politics especially.
So leave him to the cause of global warming, where he has done much good and can do some more. Al Gore is a recovering pol. Do not enable his relapse. And if relapse he does, with eyes wide open, understand that he is surrendering to disease.
That the liberal, who sees generally more what s/he wants than what is there, invests him with such political relevance is another, unfortunately related, problem.
(1)
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=242088
2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/opinion/13herbert.html?th&emc=th
(3)
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0055.html
(4)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_200001/ai_n8902653/pg_1