I spent most of the last year hoping for Gore to enter the race. My theory was that when tyranny takes over a country the restoration of liberty often involves a leader returning from exile because everyone who remained behind is tarred with a vague suspicion of collaboration. "Hey, how did you survive, anyway?"
This is somewhat unfair, of course. (De Gaulle's mission in returning to France was to liquidate the French communists who had formed almost the entirety of the French resistance. The Iraqi exile community was a craven, greedy bunch of weasels, etc.) But the archetype remains of the exiled or deposed rightful leader returning to set things aright, like Richard returning from the crusades to depose the pretender John at the end of Robin Hood.
And I wanted that for America. It seemed the most just outcome.
I stopped hoping Gore would jump in a few months ago when I realized that he would most likely lose the primary and, if he somehow got the nomination, would be just about the weakest possible general election candidate. (It was when I realized that Gore's negatives in Florida are in the 50s that I finally threw in the towel. There's little argument for his candidacy if he would lose Florida for real this time.)
It is obvious to me that Al Gore is the right man for the job. The only problem is that
the American voter just don't like Al Gore. If Gore cured cancer and won American Idol people still wouldn't like him.
Despite being out of the political mix and having a year of incredible press, and continual triumphs and accolades, and having universal name recognition, Gore is no better regarded than Hillary Clinton, a fundamentally unlikable partisan who has had dung shoveled on her from both right and left for a solid year. If that doesn't convey the magnitude of the problem, try this...
Rudy (The Ghoul) Guliani is viewed more favorably than Al Gore.And there's nothing Gore can possibly do to improve matters. God knows winning the Nobel Peace prize won't help much. What American who is impressed by the Nobel Peace prize doesn't already like Gore?
If Gore announced he would go to about 18% in the primary race... equivalent to Fred Thompson. He would be in third place. I doubt Gore could challenge Obama at this point. And his high national negatives would jump higher. Candidate Gore is certain to be less popular than Citizen Gore because 1) partisan figures are intrinsically less popular than private citizens, and 2) Al Gore is a poor politician. No one can dispute that... Gore certainly doesn't.
The fact that about half the country voted for Gore in 2000 is irrelevant. About half the country voted for Kerry in 2004, and today Kerry is about as popular as OJ Simpson. The last Kerry favorability poll seems to be from January of this year... Favorable-22, Not Favorable-48, Undecided-23, Don't Know Him-6. (CBS News Poll 1/1-3/07)
http://www.pollingreport.com/k.htm One can note that the last Kerry poll was only two months after the "bad joke" incident. Okay, the previous May he was at 26-38-21.(CBS 5/4-8/06) As George C. Scott said at the beginning of PATTON, "America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser." (And Americans reserve special contempt for teams that "find a way to lose." The fact that Gore got the most votes and still didn't win marks him, in the American psyche, as a super-loser... a bad luck talisman.)
So that's my bottom line on Gore. If he jumps in I will support him for what he represents while hoping he doesn't get the nomination. I cannot stand John Edwards, but Edwards is more electable than Al Gore. Obama, Clinton, and Biden are more electable than Al Gore. Bill Richardson is gaffe-prone, unfocused and non-presidential looking, but he is still probably more electable than Al Gore.
And that's the sad truth of it. The American people are assholes. But it is the height of folly to run a campaign on the theory that they are not assholes.