Gore Warms to Another Clinton Run

Al Gore is not going to run for president. He is going to endorse Hillary Clinton, instead.

Why?

First, Gore is very close to becoming something rare: a political figure who ends up transcending politics.

He has become an icon of the climate change movement and is widely seen to be acting out of global, not political, concerns.

If he runs for president, that changes instantly. He becomes just another politician grubbing after a job.

Second, Gore is enjoying himself and his new role. It is easy to underestimate this. Do you see the current presidential candidates enjoying themselves? Even a little?

When running for president in 2000, Gore did not enjoy himself and had no reason to. (It is easy to forget just how savage Gore's press coverage sometimes was.) Does he really want to climb into the meat grinder once again?

Third, there has been a shift in attitude toward a Gore presidential run. In the spring of this year, there was a genuine Gore boomlet, as commentator after commentator speculated on how well Gore could do if he ran for president just one more time.

Now that Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, you would think support for Gore would be burgeoning into a real groundswell. But it isn't.

Support for a Gore candidacy has been surprisingly muted, limited to a hardcore "draft Gore" movement and Jimmy Carter.

So what has changed?

Hillary. In the spring, Hillary Clinton looked beatable. Now, not so much.

Also, as a party, Democrats are no longer upset with their choices. (They are leaving that to the Republicans.) They are no longer looking for a white knight to ride up and save them from their current field.

"Hillary has a better chance than anyone else in the country to be the next president," a former Gore staffer told me.

"Gore and Hilary have a pre-existing relationship, and if he wants to be the person to move the country forward on global warming issues, he would want to help her."

But could Gore endorse Hillary, considering her vote on the war?

Gore endorsed Howard Dean on Dec. 9, 2003, when Dean was widening his lead in the polls over — wait for it — Wesley Clark.

"He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said of Dean. "He had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing."

So, considering Hillary did the wrong thing — she voted to authorize the war — why would Gore back her now? Why not back Barack Obama, who opposed the war, or John Edwards, who now admits his vote was wrong?

Because the entire Democratic top tier now has the same position on the war, that's why. In a recent debate, when asked by Tim Russert whether they could guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013, the replies were:

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Obama.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," said Clinton.

"I cannot make that commitment," said Edwards.

Given that, plus the small political consideration that Hillary has reached 50 percent in two national polls (50 percent in a field where there are eight credible candidates is extraordinary), the question for Gore becomes: Why not endorse Hillary?

Especially considering there might be something in it for him and his movement.

"We need a president who cares about global warming and will designate someone who has global appeal to be a roving ambassador on the environment," the former Gore staffer said. "Two people fit that bill: Hillary Clinton and Al Gore."

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007, CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.