In the past few weeks, the Democratic field of presidential candidates has ballooned bigger than the cast of "Bobby." This past Saturday, the presumptive frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., followed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in announcing a presidential exploratory committee; former Sen. John Edwards and a bevy of others have already announced officially.
For various reasons, none of the current Democratic candidates satisfy. You've likely heard the criticisms before - Clinton is too conniving, Obama is too inexperienced - leaving Democrats, like Goldilocks, looking for a candidate who's just right.
For a primary season that promises a number of historical breakthroughs, it's surprising that many Democrats have begun to peer into the past, searching for someone to assuage their doubt in the current crop of candidates. Many prognosticators have turned to former vice president Al Gore who, having won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, is arguably the most "electable" candidate the Democrats have.
In reality, Gore '08 is nothing more than a security blanket for anxious Democrats who are afraid they'll blow the big one yet again. During an election season that offers such electricity and promise, a Gore candidacy would likely prove to be a wet blanket for hopeful Democrats.
Before I criticize him for the next 600 words, I acknowledge that Al Gore would undoubtedly make an excellent president. In terms of experience, Gore towers over every potential candidate in both parties. That said, Americans rarely vote for candidates based on their credentials. How else could you explain the election of George W. Bush -- twice? An excellent president and an excellent presidential candidate are two very different things. Gore isn't necessarily the latter, but don't tell Democrats that.
Though a Gore candidacy might shimmer as a third way between Clinton and Obama, how might his campaign actually play out? Undoubtedly, the issue of global warming would be a keystone. But will this translate to electoral success? A recent poll by CBS News revealed that around 70 percent of Americans agree that global warming has a "serious impact now." However, in another recent poll by the Los Angeles Times, 53 percent of respondents said that climate change was either "not important" or "not a factor" when they voted in the mid-term elections.
These polls indicate that a growing consensus among the American public about global warming does not necessarily translate into electoral success for the Democrats. For most voters, global warming is an issue at the bottom of the political totem pole. In the face of much more immediate dangers, such as the war in Iraq, terrorism and nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, voters will put global warming on the back burner.
Further, Gore's inordinate focus on debatable environmental issues leaves him ripe for easy criticism from opponents. After the initial success of "An Inconvenient Truth," a glut of conservative commentators filled the nation's newspapers, airwaves and web sites with claims that Gore's film was rife with inaccuracies and distorted evidence. If Gore runs for the Democratic nomination, expect these critics to increase in volume. Though such claims have been dubious, the louder they get, the more people will believe them.
If Gore's critics successfully raise the possibility that his environmental agenda has holes, then watch Gore's credibility melt like the polar ice caps. Just ask Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), whose 2004 candidacy was sunk in part by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacking his war record using questionable evidence and half-truths. Further, Gore has yet to show that he can stand up to criticism from such opponents. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that Gore recently "chickened out" on an interview with a Danish skeptic of global warming.
If he runs, Gore might try to avoid such problems by focusing on a theme other than the environment. For example, Scot Lehigh of the Boston Globe opined in a recent column that Gore could run on an "I told you so" platform. The Bush tax cuts would bust the surplus? Gore told you so back in 2000. Global warming is a legitimate threat? Gore has focused on climate crisis for decades. The Iraq War would be a monumental mistake? Gore knew it in 2003. While this reveals that Gore has shown considerable political foresight, such a theme could just as easily come off as preachy and pedantic, as did much of his 2000 campaign.
After his fawning Hollywood contingency rewarded him with two Oscar nominations for "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore might actually consider a run for the White House. But ultimately, Democrats must accept someone new, no matter how scary it might be. Al Gore is not a safe bet to win the nomination, nor is he guaranteed to win the general election. Returning to Al Gore in 2008 displays the same brand of political timidity that has cost the Democrats elections in the past. It's time for a fresh face.
