You want sanity? Gore-Obama

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.

Comments

[Carl from L.A.]

I will be brief: I could not agree with you more.

Al Gore holds in his hands the solution to this country's dire problems, and Obama is currently his ideal running mate.

Please, Al, for all of our sakes.

[Byron Whipple]

Yes! Yes! YES!

[poverty outlaw]

Sign the petition at
http://www.draftgore.com/

Please, Mr. Gore, help us take our country back!

[Looking Back]

Thanks to Ralph Nader for telling everyone Al Gore was the same as George Bush. Where's Bush's Nobel Peace Prize nomination? Thanks to the Supreme Court for deciding that allowing President Gore to take office would do irreparable harm to Bush's campaign to be President? WE got the irreparable harm!

[Mooser]

Gore/Obama works for me! Hell, even Gore/H.Clinton would do. Maybe better, I don't know.

On the other hand, as is traditional most of Gore's qualifications for President disqualify him from the campaign.

[Via]

I think his commitment to global warming prevention will compel him to run. Where else could he have such impact? I hate to even let myself hope that we might have a future that includes environmental responsibility.

[Professor Smartass]

You are dead on about that "if I had known then what I know now" crap.

Whenever a country is being sold to us as a threat, anyone old enough to remember the Cold War would consider this calculus:

1. How many times over could we nuke that country off the map if they attacked us?

If it was Russia or China, maybe only 5-7 times. If it was a smaller country, the pilots would get bored after the first 30-40 runs.

2. What would this country gain by attacking us?

However cruel or unpleasant leaders of other countries may be, they didn't get to that position by being stupid. No leader of a country would take an action that had ZERO chance of success. Even Hitler's stupidest move, invading Russia, had some chance of success. What is the possible gain of any of our current or future boogey men in attacking us?

Russia actually has more total nukes than us, but we don't piss ourselves when Putin gets upset about something because we know that he knows the consequences of nuking us would be the deaths of everyone in Russia.

I wish someone would ask these craven assholes trying to sell a kinder, gentler lie, or even ask a republican for that matter.

[Peggy Szymeczek]

I prefer Clark/Obama.

[charles r stevens]

i prefer Gore/Finegold

[Krashkopf]

Run Al, Run! Re-Elect President Gore in 2008!

[ANNIE FROM FLA]

Gore-Obama? hhhmmmm ... not a bad idea .... In any case, I think we should re-elect Al Gore! Mr. Gore, your country needs you!

[David G. Boyle]

Gore is, of course, a great idea. Paired with Obama, bad idea. Better, or best- Gore-Richardson (of NM). Obama takes away any hope in hell of a Democrat taking any southern states. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I hate it too, and I live here. But since such states as NM, WY, MT, AZ going from red to "purple", a dem from that part of the country can cut into these republican strongholds. Agreed?

[Gore 2008]

We must never forget that those democrats now trying to wiggle out of their bad Iraq votes are the same people who hid in their cushy, ivory, Washington towers and refused to support the Congressional black caucus's challenge to the fraudulent Florida vote count in 2000 and allowed Bush to take our right to vote away and steal the 2000 election. We wouldn't now be in this disaster if they had done their job in 2000 instead of abandoning both Al Gore and our country.

[Gore 2008]

We must never forget that those democrats now trying to wiggle out of their bad Iraq votes are the same people who hid in their cushy, ivory, Washington towers and refused to support the Congressional black caucus's challenge to the fraudulent Florida vote count in 2000 and allowed Bush to take our right to vote away and steal the 2000 election. We wouldn't now be in this disaster if they had done their job in 2000 instead of abandoning both Al Gore and our country.

[mistah charley, ph.d.]

"Re-elect Gore '08" is on a campaign button you can get as a premium at Buzzflash.com

[emkay]

Close, but Gore/Feingold better.

[emkay]

Wasn't this Obama the same guy who flushed his opposition to the war as he fawned over pro-war Kerry? Yup. Obama as anti-war candidate? No sale.

[science101]

Al Gore / Chuck Hagel would be a revelation.
They would win.

[magikpowerwoman]

Gore-Feingold is my dream team. I was very disappointed that Feingold chose to stay out of the race. I cried at the end of An Inconvenient Truth - cried that the world has suffered so much under Bush and what it could have been like with President Gore. I pray every day that Al Gore will run.....for the sake of my twenty year old so she can have a life in a true democracy - Bush/Cheney have stolen America.

[Doug Roberts]

Gore/Obama sounds fine to me. In fact Gore with Richardson, Feingold or Hagel would be good too. Just do what you can to convince Gore to run. We Canadians are getting tired of feeling so bad (anger? pity? derision?) about our neighbours to the South. We used to think of you as our rich, boisterous cousins. These last few years you have been more like the spoiled brat that no-one wants to play with.

[Mary Lou Isaacson]

Gore with anyone would make me very happy.
I too felt very saddened at the end of An
Inconvenient Truth to think of where we would
be today, had Gore been President.
Is anyone running a grass roots organization to
draft Mr. Gore?