Give Al a (second) chance?

Never had to choose between potential prom dates, but maybe this is how it feels. Yesterday, I posted a piece expressing my newfound openness to supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton as a presidential candidate.

Today, my attention was drawn to an article by Bob Somerby posted in the Daily Howler, about a recent Frank Rich column about Al Gore (it's second in a two part piece on Gore). Haven't read Rich's column, and don't think I need to-- what caught me are the fine descriptions of Gore as politician and leader. Somerby writes:

In his Sunday New York Times column, Frank Rich was just talkin’ the talk on Al Gore! “He was way ahead of the Washington curve,” Rich wrote, “not just on greenhouse gases but on another issue far more pressing than Mrs. Clinton's spirited crusade to stamp out flag burning: Iraq.” Land o’ goshen! Yes, Rich stuck the needle in Hillary Clinton [ed.: sigh, say it ain't so, Hill]—but Gore had been right about global warming! And Gore had been right on Iraq—from the start! Indeed, as he continued, the mighty pundit described Gore’s wisdom concerning the war in Iraq:

RICH (5/28/06): An anti-Hussein hawk who was among the rare Senate Democrats to vote for the first gulf war, Mr. Gore forecast the disasters lying in wait for the second when he spoke out at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Sept. 23, 2002. He saw that the administration was jumping ''from one unfinished task to another'' and risked letting Afghanistan destabilize and Osama bin Laden flee. He saw that the White House was recklessly putting politics over policy by hurrying a Congressional war resolution before the midterm elections (and before securing international support). Most important, he noticed then that the administration had ''not said much of anything'' about ''what would follow regime change.'' He imagined how ''chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.”

For the record, Gore also said that war with Iraq could weaken America’s role as world leader. "In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world,” he said in that speech. "That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world.” But Rich didn’t even have time to note that; instead, he heaped a bit more praise on Gore’s wisdom. “In truth, as with global warming, Mr. Gore's stands on Iraq (both in 1991 and 2002) were manifestations of leadership,” he wrote, “the single attribute most missing from the current Democrats with presidential ambitions.”
Good grief! Gore had been right on Iraq in 1991. And he’d been right on Iraq in 2002. And all along, he’d been right on warming!?)

Right, right and right! Big Al, batting 1.000! Why aren't we out in the streets demanding a coup d'etat? (Or, demanding the reversal of the coup de jure in 2000?)

But wait, there's more from Somerby:

While we’re on the subject of Gore’s good judgments, Peter Beinart went Rich one better in his own recent assessment:

BEINART (5/30/06): If you were to go from the Gulf War through Kosovo and Iraq, you would find that a large number of people in every facet of the liberal Democratic universe were wrong, on at least one of those wars. Very, very few people were right about all three of them. The people who were—and I think Al Gore is in this category—deserve a significant amount of credit, but the truth of the matter is, if you were looking for an untainted record, you would find very few people.

Based on past writings, we’d guess that Rich would agree about Kosovo too. Who knows? Perhaps he’d even agree with Joe Klein, who says this, about Gore as vice president, in his awful book, Politics Lost: “His judgment was rock solid, admirable and visionary. And yes, I really did learn a lot from him about both military and environmental issues.”

I don't think any of these people are ardent supporters of Mr. Gore, but listen to what they say about him!

Here's the issue, and it's pretty much the same as for Hillary: Mr. Gore needs to find a way to persuade a lot of people about his genuine qualities and to overcome negative images so prevalent out there. The Republicans are part of the problem; the "mainstream media" (Frank Rich!) are part of the problem. But the responsibility lies with these capable Democratic leaders to project and communicate past these obstacles.