Al Gore - Victim or Loser?

There is a rather interesting article in this week's Economist about Al Gore potentially running for President - and why he shouldn't bother. The broad sweep of the article is absolutely correct - Gore doesn't have the personality to run for President, and he lacks the spark he needs to have with the electorate. But for me the real reason why Gore shouldn't run is because he does not stand a chance of winning.

The Democratic party needed Gore in 2000 - there were no other credible candidates. They arguably need him on 2004 - when the Democrats managed to nominate the only person in their party who was less electable than Gore. But this time out the entire field of Democratic front runners appear credible candidates for the nomination - and indeed the White House.

Look at their pitches - Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent. She has the name recognition, she has the war chest, she had a peerless campaigner as her husband and she has the attention to policy detail. Sure, she winds up some people the wrong way, and lacks the charisma of her husband. But she is mounting a credible campaign for the nomination, and would be able to mount a credible bid for the White House.

Also running for the Democratic nomination is the apparent antithesis to Senator Clinton. Barack Obama is charismatic, a natural candidate. His Audacity of Hope more than makes up for his paucity of policy. Sure, he is a political lightweight compared to the like of Clinton but he looks like he could win.

And somewhere in the middle you have John Edwards. He is genial, credible and with recent experience of a presidential campaign. He has name recognition and whilst he is in third place at the moment, if the Democrats see Obama and Clinton as too much of a risk then he could be the perfect candidate in next year's General Election.

So there you have it - the capable, the charismatic and the compromise. There is not place in the field for Gore. In the charisma stakes he is beaten by Obama and Edwards. In the capability stakes he is beaten by Clinton. And in the name recognition stakes all three candidates can give him a good run for his money. He is soundly beaten - and this is just by people in his own party.

Gore would need to find a unique selling point to justify his bid for the White House. And what is he best known for now everyone hates Bush and most people want to leave Iraq? Banging on about the environment. Sure, this will make him popular with some sections of the American electorate. But those sections are the left wing, would be liberals. The Democrats need to branch out from their traditional base, whereas all Gore can offer is an appeal to those who would be voting Democrat already.

It is tempting to see a historical parallel between Nixon in 1968 and Gore in 2008. Nixon, a sitting Vice President, had been beaten in a very close election 8 years previously, with his rival arguably using some very underhand tactics. He staged an unlikely comeback against the backdrop of an unpopular war, and, despite having been written off as a potential President, he won the White House. However Nixon was lucky that his credible rivals left the race, one by one* and Nixon, for all of his faults, was a far better candidate than Gore, if only owing to his tenacity and ability to use all means at his disposal to fight. 2008 is not a re-run of 1968 - there are any number of tenable alternatives to the former Vice-President.

History has a place for Gore - he will be one of the great what-ifs, and will always gain some sympathy from history because of the perception that he was cheated by Bush Junior. But if he runs again he risks losing that sympathy. If he runs again, he loses, and instead of people feeling sympathy for him because he ran and won the election but lost the White House owing to nefarious action from his rival people will see him as the guy who kept on running, but just couldn't win.

*Lyndon Johnson refused to run owing to health problems and Vietnam, RFK was assassinated and Rockefeller was too liberal for his own party.