Liberals must be getting really desperate about 2016. They want Al Gore to run for president.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton carries a lot of political baggage in her quest for the Democrat presidential nomination, so the liberal magazine Salon has a “solution” to the party’s worry that she might not have what it takes to win the White House.
Writing for Salon, Sean Illing argues that the former vice president – and current climate-change activist – would be the “perfect” pick in a weak Democrat presidential field, given Clinton’s lackluster performance so far.
“The presidential election is still 16 months away, but this much is clear: Hillary Clinton is a vulnerable candidate,” he writes.
It’s nice to see Salon stumble onto a brief moment of honesty.
“To win, therefore, the Democrats need a nationally viable candidate,” Illing writes. “Enter Al Gore: the one person on the left, apart from Clinton and Biden, with the cachet to bridge the establishment and progressive wings of the party.”
Only to Democrats would the word “progressive” mean looking back to the movers and shakers of the 1990s.
“His background speaks for itself: a former congressman, U.S. senator, and two-time vice president. He’s even succeeded wildly in the private sector as a businessman,” Illing argues.
By “private sector,” Illing is referring to Gore’s crony-capitalist climate-change enterprises, which have made him millions of dollars largely by manipulating public policy and taking advantage of government subsidies.
Apparently, making money off taxpayers through fear-mongering counts as “private sector” experience to the liberals who write for Salon.
Illing then argues that Gore’s record, and his recent break from holding political office, gives him an advantage in the general election compared to the current crop of Democrat hopefuls.
“Gore is a national figure,” Illing writes. “He can rival any GOP candidate in terms of fundraising prowess, party support, organizational acumen, experience, and name recognition. He’s also become something of a rock star post-politics, winning a Nobel, an Oscar, and an Emmy.”
So, Gore has the Hollywood crowd ready to support him. Is this really a change for Democrats?
Gore’s record of shilling for anti-global warming policies also gives him a unique image among voters, argues Illing.
“As Ezra Klein argued a few months ago in a column about Gore, ‘Income inequality is a serious problem … But climate change is an existential threat.’ Gore, whatever you think of him, is an unimpeachable authority on climate change,” he wrote.
Illing ignores the fact that part of Gore’s “unimpeachable” record includes a “hockey stick” graph of temperatures that has been discredited, a 2007 prediction that the polar ice caps would be completely melted within six years, and a documented history of expanding his own personal “carbon footprint” while telling the rest of America to cut back on fossil fuels.
Then Illing gets to the heart of the matter, asserting that Gore would be the best Democrat candidate to run against the former Republican governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, in the general election.
“If we’re stuck with a rerun election [Clinton vs. Bush], most would prefer to see Gore get his vengeance against another Bush,” he wrote.
Now it makes sense: Salon wants yet another recount of the 2000 election. For a “progressive,” Illing sure has a tough time letting go of the past.