A couple days ago, in "Kindly Take That Apology and Shove It," I wrote "the objective ... is a nominee who lacks a record of grotesque gullibility, easy manipulation, or lethal opportunism." I wrote it because I'm offended by the focus-grouped excuse being offered by those presidential candidates who voted in favor of handing a blank check to Mr. Bush, dated October 2002 -- their "If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted 'Aye'" excuse, which is followed by the obligatory apology, "which is sold as heroic humility, but is in reality ... little more than an admission of staggering malfeasance."
I thought I should note that after writing the article's concluding lines, I then wrote, as an afterthought:
And, as logic would have it, that leads us to ... Gore-Obama.
Then I deleted it. The point of "Kindly Take That Apology" wasn't to pimp any one candidate. It was, rather, a lament over the ones we have. Most of them, anyway.
But logic does lead us to Gore-Obama, both of whom were prescient in seeing the looming catastrophe posed by the 2002 war-authorization vote -- and said so at the time. As for the team's lead member, I shall go to another piece I wrote, on 29 May 2006:
"Why should I run for office?" Mr. Gore asked [a NYT reporter].
Surely, Al, you jest. Why should you run?
Could it be that millions ... are longing for some realistic alternative....? Or that you could do more good as president than as filmmaker? Or that perhaps you should serve the term you already won?
Or that you’re the most forceful, honest and ethical voice speaking today in opposition to reactionary neo-Republicanism? Or that when the office calls, any personal preference to stay at home should take a back seat?
And shouldn’t you take your own advice, that which you so discerningly dispensed to [the reporter]? To wit …
You "brimmed with disdain at the state of American politics and political journalism, urging [your] interviewer to quit a career of covering politics to turn to matters of real consequence….
"Politics, [you] said, has become a game of meaningless, mindless battles, conducted by unscrupulous methods and people, designed to transform even the most serious policy debates into sport."
Al, isn’t one politician’s principled concentration on "matters of real consequence" the only way to counteract "unscrupulous" politicians self-embroiled in "meaningless, mindless" manipulations that cater to the lowest common electoral denominator?
"Political scribes," you lectured the NYT interviewer, "have to take off their cynical lenses through which they view every moral challenge as political spin."
Again, aren’t your own words, Mr. Gore, reason enough to run? Forget the pure horserace mentality of political scribes for now. First the gauntlet of "moral challenge" has to be thrown down. Without that focus, that repeated emphasis on what matters, the scribbling P.T. Barnums of the press corps will have nothing left to cover but the circus.
If you want change, Mr. Gore, you must get in the game.
You said it yourself.
I believed that then and I believe it now. As for Mr. Gore's repeated door-closings on a political reentry, he also always leaves just enough of a crack to permit some hope slipping through. The how, however, of moving him from detachment to reengagement requires better minds and larger resources than possessed here.
As for my suggestion of Mr. Obama as Veep, Al's eight presidential years would provide wonderful executive training for Barack's own two terms -- a bit like Jack Kennedy's appointment of his younger brother Robert as Attorney General, because, as the older joked, he wanted to "give him a little legal experience before he goes out to practice law."
And a final suggestion. If the huge "how" problem of Mr. Gore can be overcome, he should promptly depart from tradition and ask Mr. Obama to join him upfront in the secondary slot, with the latter throwing his not inconsiderable support to Mr. Gore throughout the primaries. They would be an unbeatable team -- primaries, general election and all. Then maybe we can get back to running this country with some proven thoughtfulness.
***
I wish to thank the contributors to this commentary who graciously consented to being thanked online:
Karla Lowe, Longwood FL
Marty Schiller, Cyberville USA
Kathy Bryant, Fort Worth TX
David Boyle, Northport AL
If you meant to contribute but didn't get around to it, you may of course still do so, here, as millions have already done.
Thanks to all.
-- P.M.