Home › Blogs › Craig Berger's blog ›

The Al Gore Tour

For the last year or so I have been telling anyone who would listen that Al Gore will become the next President of the United States. I have numerous reasons for believing he'll be a sure thing when he makes the jump, but the biggest reason why Gore will win is the combination of his mastery of the media environment and his past campaign experiences.

While all of the other candidates are jockeying for position within the political community, Gore is not-so-quietly building his cultural cachet he will need to actually win. Those of us who are consumed with politics 24/7 always seem to forget that the other 75% of people don't pay much attention to politics when there isn't an immanent election, and yet it is that other 75% that a candidate needs to win over in order to win (even in a primary). And while most candidates would find it tough, if not impossible, to reach out far beyond the political sphere, Gore doesn't have such troubles. An Academy Award winning blockbuster documentary, a book tour, and the largest concert in human history (which will happen this summer) have a way of raising ones profile. And while some people still believe that Gore is perceived as the boring-bot that he seemed to be during the 200 election cycle, I think that he now appears to be... Presidential.

I also believe that he can effectively mobilize the younger voters of the nation, espescially when he picks Obama as his Vice Presidential candidate. Take a look at him on the Daily Show (over at Crooks and Liars), where he was promoting his new book, and tell me that Gore doesn't hold the most promise for turning our nation, and possibly the world, around:

He also had a great interview session with Larry King, who I usually cannot stand, where he, among other things, skewered all of the other candidates (though in pretty subtle ways). I have only found an edited version of the interview, but you can still get the picture:

The question that I have is pretty simple: how can I get a job on the Gore campaign? How do you send in an application for a job that doesn't exist yet?

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
May 29th, 2007 10:39am
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cultural Cache

Submitted by Michael Connery on Tue, 2007-05-29 10:59.

Your comments about the necessity of cultural cache and convincing the non-politically obsessed portion of the electorate that you are a viable candidate are right on. I think that failure to internalize that observation was a sticking point that held back a lot of youth organizations from reaching a broad audience among their peers. More so in the past, but even to this day.

However I still think you are dreaming with Gore. There’s no upside for him. In many ways, that is because of his great success in the cultural realm. Gore has begun to transcend politics. As an outsider with huge popular appeal, he can get any Democratic candidate to endorse his program for fighting climate change. Once he enters the race, though, candidates need to differentiate themselves from him and they’ll start to compete on the issue. Plus, he’ll be instantly sullied by all the other myriad of things that are wrong with our country which he will have to comment on - Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Social Security, Health Care … and the media is an unforgiving master … the old smears will reemerge once he lowers himself back into the cold plastic hallway of politics.

Who has the most power to make change?

Submitted by Alex UA on Tue, 2007-05-29 11:29.

If I’m dreaming, then don’t wake me up!

I think the old adage of “the only politician that doesn’t want to be president is a dead politician” fully applies with Gore. Sure, he can make a lot of good things happen from outside the political sphere, but he could do infinitely more if he held the position of “most powerful person of the most powerful nation in the world”.

If we’re going to do something about the climate crisis it is going to take a President with the smarts and will to mobilize this nation and the world to address it, and the reality is that only one person has the leadership abilities to force our nation back onto the right track: Gore. And I don’t think that this election will be about specific issues (I don’t think that they ever are), it will be about who can best lead us through the myriad of crises that we will face as a nation (the ones you mention and more).

If Gore really believes that we are on the precipice of disaster, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or vision, than he has a moral obligation to run. Once he does, the other candidates will have no choice but to accept defeat and vie for second place and a VP slot. I don’t think that any of the criticisms that will be aimed at Gore will stick, they’ll simply sink that candidate/wonk a bit. The Gore train is coming- hop on board or get left behind/knocked aside.

Just kidding on those last points… a bit.

Wishful thinking

Submitted by Michael Connery on Tue, 2007-05-29 11:45.

I think that’s wishful thinking on your part w/r/t Gore’s Teflon armor.

And a moral obligation to run is the wrong way of putting it. Good intentions (and moral imperatives) are frequently sacrificed at the altar of pragmatism in politics, and I think that Gore’s authority on the issue and his real world power is inversely proportional to his participation in partisan electoral politics.

If the election isn’t about issues, then Gore is sunk. He won’t overcome his old self in the media based on personality alone, which I still find very lacking. It’s the content of his speeches that are so stirring.

And yes, I think it’s cachet, not cache.

A wish is worth a thousand pessimists...

Submitted by Alex UA on Tue, 2007-05-29 18:54.

I don’t think I’m being unrealistic in regards to Gore, though I understand your skepticism. I see someone who has the perfect combination of experience, intelligence, a great story, and a mastery of the media landscape that most candidates could only dream of. I cannot see how any of the candidates will be able to make a dent on Gore, but I’ve been wrong before.

I strongly disagree about the inverse relationship between Gore’s partisanship and his effectiveness. I believe that Gore has found his political mojo and will be the type of leader that can pull the landscape leftward as POTUS, and I also believe that pragmatism in regards to some of the bigger problems, esp. the environment, is going to seem a lot more like radicalism over the next few years than you seem to expect. Maybe it will take one more Katrina, maybe it will take five. Unfortunately, I believe Gore is right about the “inconvenient truth” that we will see more and more natural disasters in the near future, and as the saying goes: crisis precipitates change.

As far as issues goes, I think that I stated that a bit clumsily. What I meant was that I don’t think that this will be an “issue checklist” election. I believe that one lesson that should be taken from the last election is that the power of the single issue groups has declined, and pretty far at that. For the most clear example take a look at PA and the election of anti-choice Dem Bob Casey, who I personally worked night and day to elect despite my reservations about his stances on a few issues that I hold near and dear to my heart. But you can also look at elections across the election and find pretty much the same thing- people wanted a more general change, and a lot more leadership, than the current crop of pols were providing.

Well said

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Tue, 2007-05-29 22:52.

I think that Gore’s authority on the issue and his real world power is inversely proportional to his participation in partisan electoral politics.

This is also how I read it. I kind of don’t want Gore to get too involved because I think he’s stronger on the outside in a lot of ways. But you know… the junk… it’s hard to resist.

I don’t really think he’s any more media-savvy than before as a personality. He probably knows more, but I tend to think he knew a lot before. I think what you have now is a political press that has no real reason to be hard on him anymore, and finds that he’s doing Good Things without upsetting Their Little World. I think that a lot of Gore’s new shine comes from not being constantly under attack.

Not a critique of him or his ability to do the job of president. God knows the system we have does not actually function to select the most capable people. But every “prospective” candidate always looks better before they step down into the mud pit.

and is it cache or cachet?

Submitted by Alex UA on Tue, 2007-05-29 11:30.

I was looking at the dictionary today and both seemed to apply. So which is correct?

Cultural Cachet

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Tue, 2007-05-29 22:47.

Cachet is the word usually paired with culture to denote suaveness or popularity. Cache would be like your stash of cool — or literally a cache of culture, like a time-capsule — which is also a neat idea, but not quite the same.