Saturday, April 26, 2008

Why Not Al Gore?

If, as the Clinton campaign seems to argue, that it doesn't matter who has won the most primaries and caucuses, or has the most delegates, or the most popular votes, then why shouldn't the superdelegates vote for someone who hasn't even announced, say someone like Al Gore?

Al Gore has been on three tickets that won the popular vote in an election. He has the more experience than either Clinton or Obama. He was against the Iraq War from the start. He was way ahead of the curve on the crisis of global warming. He has won the Nobel Prize. In short, he is a much candidate than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

The whole strategy behind Clinton's increasingly negative campaign against Obama is based on the concept that Democratic delegates have no alternative to Obama than herself. That is true, if the Democratic delegates confine themselves just to those two candidates. There is no legal reason, however, why they have to do so.

If there was an alternative to Obama other than Clinton, and if that alternative emerged relatively soon, the tone of the battle for the Democratic nomination would change dramatically. Clinton couldn't engate in a plan to tear down Obama because tearing him down wouldn't necessarily mean than she would get the nomination. Tearing down a candidate in a three-way race can result in votes going to the candidate who is not being either attacked or attacking.

Gore has not endorsed either candidate and has not been involved in the battle for the nomination. He could accept the nomination without being seen as betraying either Obama or Clinton. Supporters of either Obama or Clinton might find it easier to support him than the other of those two.

Further, the nomination of Gore wouldn't run the same risk of alientating the voters that Obama has brought into the process as the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, a Gore-Obama ticket might generate as much excitement as a ticket of Obama and some more conventional politician.

There are some drawbacks to nominating Gore. The media doesn't seem particulary friendly to him. Dedicated supporters of both Clinton and Obama would be very unhappy. He would have to put together both a campaign organization and a fundrasing organization on a very quick basis. These obstackes are not, however, insurmountable.

So, the question remains, why not Al Gore?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Why not Al?
#1...He couldn't win his home state.
#2...He picked Liberman
#3...He lost to George Bush...the ultimate humiliation.