By Lisa Fabrizio on 5.31.06 @ 12:07AM
The media has latched onto yet another "new" Al Gore. How long will this one last?
June is (just about) busting out all over and, so it seems, is
Democratic interest in erstwhile presidential candidate Albert
Gore, Jr. Yes, Al Gore, who in his last quest for the White House
learned the hard way that a kiss is usually just a kiss, but a sigh
can sometimes be more consequential.
Al's been all over lately. From a fluff piece in Time magazine to an
appearance on Saturday Night Live, he was even the toast
of the Cannes Film Festival where he allegedly spoke fluent French.
He's been promoting An
Inconvenient Truth, which is either the name of his new
global-warming horror flick or an accurate description of his
electability quotient.
In their search for a candidate with "passion" -- a code-word
for "he who is not Kerry" -- some Democrats seem to have returned
right back where they started, when the Constitutional statute of
limitations ran out on the passion-packed Bill Clinton. But rather
than back Bill's better half, many are talking up Gore.
So just what is it that makes Gore a more palatable candidate
this time around? Says pal Chris Lehane: "People are now looking at
him through the prism of the last six years and realizing that he
had and has a lot to offer." Sounds great, but on the other side of
that prism is just another costume change.
Gone is the crazy Uncle Al of his MoveOn.org days, where he used
his best fire-and-brimstone voice to ensure his small but rabid
group of admirers that George W. Bush "betrayed this country" and
"played on our fears." In his place we find someone who's now
described as a "leading man" possessed of "star power," conjuring
up memories of Al Gore, Alpha Male.
But this time, tanned and rested for his latest incarnation as
global savior, is he truly ready for his close-up? Left-wing
blogger Arianna Huffington thinks so "After the screening, as I watched him
interact with well-wishers, accepting congratulations and answering
questions, he radiated commitment and confidence. Here was a man
truly comfortable in his own skin." But that's the problem; this
man has shed more skins than a Tennessee mud snake, but apparently
not enough to queer his chances with the left.
Adding to his allure as a presidential contender is that
somewhere along the line he's managed to enrich his own personal
environment and now appears to be a man of means. Sometimes it's
easy being green, especially when you can parlay it into even
more green as a senior advisor to Google, a
founder of Generation Investment Management, and a board member of
Apple Computers.
Yet his greatest attraction for liberals seems to be that in
addition to not being John Kerry, he is also not Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Mrs. Clinton has, as do most potential presidential
hopefuls, tacked somewhat to the political center and is now
improbably regarded by the left as a war hawk, and worse. Perched
precariously astraddle many issues, Senator Clinton is finding her
seat a tad uncomfortable.
As a result, there are signs that some powerful liberals will
not support her candidacy. As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, "questions about the Clinton
marriage appeared on the front page of the New York Times
last week as a virtual editorial begging her not to run." And the
Los Angeles Times, under the ruse of promoting her hubby
to head the UN, chipped in with, "The best thing Hillary Rodham
Clinton could do for humanity is not run for president." Yes, the
times they are a-changin'.
But some things never change and, in politics, loyalty sometimes
takes a back seat to one's own agenda. In the worst tradition of
the Clintons, Gore ignored candidate Joe Lieberman in 2004,
endorsing the Democrats' last man of passion, Howard Dean, without
even so much as a phone call to his former running-mate in
advance.
And although we've been promised yet another new Al Gore, his
current movie tour strategy employs a tactic from his last campaign
that seems to work for him: lying. However, when you call it "over-representation" it doesn't sound so bad,
especially when applied to global warming, or maybe even the
pursuit of the presidency:
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think
there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is
appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we
are going to solve this crisis."
topics:
Bill Clinton, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, NATO