In a recent column in the New York Times, the conservative David Brooks insinuated that Al Gore was too brainy, perhaps too smart, to be president.
Huh?
After more than six years of a president who is inflexible, incurious, and incompetent, it might be just the right time for an Al Gore.
The case against Gore running again has some merit. He is an old political name on national ballots. He ran a poor race against Bush in 2000. He can be difficult and aloof at times.
Consider the flip side. He is an old name who has exhibited good judgment on the war in Iraq, the environment, and other hot-button issues. He polled a half-million more popular votes than Bush, despite a disputed loss in the electoral college.
Based on personality alone, the country would never have elected Harry Truman, who was often irascible and had a nasty temper, yet historians rank him highly.
On the Republican side of the early running for president, Gore's fellow Tennessean, Fred Thompson, is almost certain to run, because GOP voters are not satisfied with their choices. Even without an official declaration, Thompson is climbing in the polls.
Gore could use the same rationale. Hillary Clinton is popular with liberal activists, but doubt exists she can win a general election. Sen. Barack Obama has an enthusiastic following but has shown signs of being unready for the presidency. John Edwards has already made some stumbles in his bid. The rest of the Democratic field is in the 1 or 2 percent category and will have difficulty reaching the first tier.
There is no doubt Gore is comfortable in retirement in Nashville. He can speak out on issues without being subjected to sniping as he would as a candidate. Life has to be serene compared with an adult life as a political figure. Further, he appears unwilling to respond to calls for entering the race.
However, the country will be in need of a strong and capable leader in 2009, when Bush finally leaves Washington. He will leave behind a mess largely of his making, especially in a disastrous foreign policy and the miserable and costly war in blood and national treasure.
So the bottom line here is: Run, Al, run.
John W. Mashek covered politics in Washington for four decades with U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Boston Globe. His primary beats were Congress, the White House, and national politics. He covered every presidential election from 1960 to 1996. He was a panelist in three televised presidential debates in 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Reader Comments