Gore, Part 2

In the coming weeks, we're going to be hearing a lot about Al Gore as a suitable alternative to Hillary in '08. This is true, for three clear reasons.

First, the consensus is growing that Hillary cannot beat the likely GOP nominee in 2008, either Guiliani or McCain. The Dems, really, have no one but themselves to blame, as the single defining characteristic of the contemporary Democratic pol is a visceral, all-consuming hatred of George W. Bush. This may help the Dems this November (I'm dubious) but will do them next to no good in 2008. For the first time in 56 years, since 1952, neither a sitting President nor a sitting Vice-President will be a contender for the Oval Office. What's more, Cheney's not running, nor Jeb, nor Condi. Furthermore, McCain and Guiliani are especially insulated against ties to W., McCain because of his well-known personal animus toward Bush, Rudy for his distance from Washington, and because his heroism on 9/11 was used (mostly by Dems) to flog Bush's supposedly weak performance.

As I wrote yesterday, the challenge to a Hillary candidacy is clear: hold every state Kerry won, then win either Ohio or Florida. Two years out, does this seem like a plausible scenario? Hillary would be more likely to lose Pennsylvania or Wisconsin (or, against Rudy, New York) than make gains on Kerry's run.

(Two digressions here. First, a GOP collapse could always happen. Another terrorist attack throws everything into doubt, and nobody knows about Iraq. Second, the notion of the GOP salivating over a Hillary campaign has familiar echoes from the past, going all the way back to 1968, when the Dems dreamed of facing Nixon; of 1980, when Reagan was seen as a candidate with stronger negatives than Bush 41 or Howard Baker; to 1988, when the Dems openly rooted for Bush to beat Dole in the primaries; to 1992, when the GOP couldn't wait to take on Clinton; and to 2000, when the Dems feared McCain and continued to underestimate Bush 43. Be careful what you wish for. Okay, back to the post.)

These fears on the Dem side have opened the door for Gore. Will he run, and will he win?

Maybe, and no--not the general election, anyway.

Jim Taranto, at Best of the Web , offers three reasons why not. First, the greatest speech of Gore's life was his concession in 2000, indicating he is more relaxed out of politics. Second, the Dems will do whatever the Clintons want. (More to the point, the Clintons destroywhoever gets in their way. If Gore would run, you could expect some plants in the MSM regarding his shortcomings as Vice President and his alleged unelectability.) Third, the climate--the one factor that distinguishes Gore, aside from his position on Iraq--won't always be as cooperative as it was in 2005.

The third point strikes me as the weakest. Gore often begins his speeches by asking a rherotical question in that unctuous, grating tone of his: "Have we been having some crazy weather lately?" He has been known to describe the nine-month period between the Asian tsunami and Hurrican Katrina as "a nature walk through the Book of Revelations." But it doesn't matter. To Gore and his ilk, hot means global warming, cold means global warming; dry, wet, snow, sleet, all mean global warming. No proof, no piece of evidence, will convince them otherwise.

That said, barring a flood that permanently puts the Atlantic Ocean up to the Statue of Liberty's armpit (a common image around the web) people just aren't going to vote on glaciers. Most people know that people have very little to do with climate, and what we could do to affect said climate would require massive sacrifices for minimal results.

What is left then, is Gore himself. And Part 3, tomorrow.