Gore: No Laughing Matter?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:24 AM

One moment I'm watching Al Gore delivering an Oval Office address on "Saturday Night Live" (Crooks and Liars has the video ), bragging about his many accomplishments and expressing confidence in Baseball Commissioner George W. Bush. It was mildly amusing.

Now--call it the SNL effect--there's some buzzing that maybe Gore will make a White House run in 2008.

My initial reaction: Hasn't the ex-veep made it pretty clear that he's not running? Why would he want to give up a life of making big bucks working for Google and Apple and appearing in global warming movies? And why is there always this effort by the media to draft people (Colin Powell, Condi Rice) who insist they're not running for president?

Look, if Gore did decide to put himself through the campaign meat grinder again, I can see certain advantages (he won the popular vote in 2000) and disadvantages (all the reasons he didn't win the electoral vote in 2000). And of course the press would love to see him take on Hillary.

But just as I was about to dismiss this as sheer fantasy, I noticed that the AP's influential political writer, Ron Fournier , had filed the following story:

"Al Gore is running to California, New York, Utah, Washington, France and points in between to promote 'An Inconvenient Truth,' a film chronicling his elaborate slide shows to educate people about global warming.

"But is the former vice president running for president again?

"The answer, he says, is no. Some Democrats are not so sure.

" 'I'm a recovering politician on about Step 9,' Gore told The Associated Press. 'But I'm on a different kind of campaign now -- to persuade people to take action to solve the climate crisis, and it's always easier when you're focused on one thing.' "

Not exactly Shermanesque, but nor does it sound like he's panting to run.

Dick Morris , who had put his marbles on Hillary vs. Condi (in his book of the same name), doesn't rule out a Gore bid:

"Like a completely refurbished 'pre-owned vehicle,' Al Gore seems to be positioning himself to Hillary Clinton's left and as greener than John Kerry for a run at the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. His slogan might well read 'reelect Al Gore.'

"The former vice president's slashing attacks on the administration and his stalwart, if misguided, opposition to the Iraq war leave him without the complications and complexes that will devil Clinton as she seeks to appeal to the unforgiving left of the Democratic Party.

"And Gore may be a man whose time has come in his party. It was he who warned of climate change and predicted its consequences. Hurricane Katrina was just a fulfillment of the prophesies Gore wrote about in his late-1980s book Earth in the Balance. He has been an energy-conservation nut for years, and his obsessions with alternatives to oil will play better and better as we come to realize how our addiction to oil has led us to dependency on the dealers of this particular drug -- Iran, the Saudi royal family and Hugo Chavez.

"The Democratic base's anger at Gore's defeat in 2000 was assuaged by the worse Kerry defeat of 2004. The idea that he was an incompetent candidate has been replaced in Democratic iconography by the idea that he was cheated out of the presidency."

HuffPoster Rodes Fishburne puts his reputation on the line:

"Here's one wild prediction: Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election . . . He has something going for him that Senator Hillary Clinton can't touch: nothing is more satisfying to the American soul than a bona-fide comeback. In fact the comeback is one of the great stories of all-time . . .

"For the first time in modern politics he will be able to run on the S-C-W platform. This is the Shoulda Coulda Woulda position that whispers in polite but firm tones into the many ears of the national psyche, 'If you'd voted for me, we wouldn't be in this mess.' "

Of course, we might be in a different kind of mess. Who knows?

Here's a new tea leaf, as read by the New Republic's Jason Zengerle :

"I see (via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire) that Al Gore made an interesting comment in Atlanta yesterday: 'Like I said, I'm a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse.' He's been using the 'recovering politician' joke for years, but I believe the 'relapse' line is new."

And Philly blogger Dick Polman is even bragging that he had it first:

"I recall some weeks ago saying that it would be wise, regarding the 2008 Democratic presidential race, to keep an eye on Al Gore. I'll say it again today. Leaving aside the fact that in recent months he has landed on the cover of three magazines and helmed the opening sketch on Saturday Night Live, he has now dropped a hint that his political ambitions might yet be freed from his lockbox."

Arianna gives an indication of how popular the Tennessean has become with the liberal blogging set:

"Just before I'd left for the screening, I'd read about a new ad campaign timed to coincide with the Gore film, calling into question the message of the film and, by extension, the messenger. The ads were put together by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group funded by ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Ford. No discernable corporate agenda there!

". . .Gore isn't running for office, and already the negative campaigning has begun. This is what anyone who takes a stand faces these days -- politics as demolition derby -- and why so many politicians operate out of fear.

"But when I asked Gore about it, he was unfazed. I couldn't help but flash on the stiff, robotic Gore of the 2000 campaign. You could smell the fear on the Gore of 2000. Just as you could smell it on Kerry in 2004, as he ran a campaign that consistently chose caution over boldness.

"And it's the same sickening scent that Hillary Clinton is wearing today: Eau de Don't Let Me Screw Up and Flush My Chances Down the Toilette ."

Is this all silly-season stuff? Probably. By the SNL measure, if Gore shows up on the "Daily Show," we'll know he's running.

More and more lawmakers are into fence-building:

"The Senate today approved a measure to build at least 370 miles of double- and triple-layered fences along the U.S. border with Mexico, moving its immigration bill closer to the enforcement-focused approach favored by conservatives," says the L.A. Times . "While parts of the California and Texas border are already fenced, the bill would also replace and extend fencing along the Arizona border where illegal border crossings have surged to the nation's highest levels. If smuggling shifts to other areas, the bill authorizes fence construction in 'areas that are most used by smugglers.' It also calls for erecting 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border."

Apparently, a little stroking on the Hill goes a long way:

"Classified briefings provided to lawmakers on Wednesday about a controversial domestic eavesdropping program have smoothed what might have been a contentious path toward confirmation for Gen. Michael V. Hayden as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, senators and Congressional officials said," reports the NYT .

"The closed-door sessions in the Capitol, on the eve of a confirmation hearing for General Hayden, were the first time the White House had provided briefings to the full Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the program. As director of the National Security Agency until last year, General Hayden oversaw the surveillance program, whose existence came to light in December.

"The Bush administration had for months resisted Congressional appeals to expand the number of lawmakers briefed about the program, and lawmakers from both parties had been planning to use General Hayden's confirmation hearings as a public forum to rail against White House stonewalling."

And today is the day:

"The appearance of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Thursday will in a sense kick off not one but two hearings, and both could be dangerous for the White House," says the Chicago Tribune .

"Most directly, senators will examine Hayden's qualifications to be the director of the beleaguered Central Intelligence Agency. But a hearing within a hearing will explore whether Hayden went too far or broke the law in sanctioning domestic eavesdropping programs in his former job as director of the National Security Agency . . .

"Hayden's answers--and the extent to which they reassure senators concerned about the invasion of Americans' privacy--could determine not only his future at the CIA but also whether Congress chooses to delve deeper into spying activities the president approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

If that doesn't excite you, guess what's coming back?

"Social conservatives say President Bush must work harder before next month's scheduled Senate vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman," says the Washington Times , "and some even say the White House is sending all the wrong signals on the issue . . .

"Conservatives said Mr. Bush could stand to push the Federal Marriage Amendment, especially given his faltering support among his base and the widespread support for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Meanwhile, the House ethics committee has decided to open for business again.

"Breaking a long stalemate, the House Ethics Committee opened investigations into Republican and Democratic lawmakers who are already under scrutiny by the Justice Department," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"The bipartisan panel announced last night that it will look into the activities of Reps. Bob Ney (R., Ohio) and William Jefferson (D., La.). The committee also said that it would examine whether other lawmakers were involved in a bribery scandal that has already led to the conviction of former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R., Calif.).

"The committee would have investigated the overseas travel of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), but won't because Mr. DeLay has decided to leave Congress, the panel announced."

The congressman who jump-started the debate over Iraq has dived back into the fray:

"Six months after first calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops," says the Philadelphia Inquirer , "Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the military situation in Iraq had only gotten worse, and he predicted the war would be pivotal in this year's elections.

"Murtha, a decorated war veteran with credibility across the political spectrum on military issues, triggered an intense national debate Nov. 17 when he called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, saying the United States had become bogged down and could accomplish nothing more.

"Murtha contended in a Capitol Hill news conference yesterday that by most every military and economic measure, the situation in Iraq had deteriorated. He said oil production, a key ingredient for Iraqi prosperity, had not reached prewar levels; much of the country gets only nine to 11 hours of electricity a day. In Baghdad, the average is 2.9 hours.

" 'The president insists that our military needs to stay the course, but there is no plan for progress,' Murtha said. 'Every convoy is attacked, IEDs [improvised explosive devices] exploding all around, being shot at every day. They [American troops] are in constant and severe stress. The only people who can settle this are the Iraqis.' "

Should the Dems vow to sic their probers on the president if they capture the House? Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum weighs in:

"Republicans are already raising money from their true-believer base by warning them that a Democratic victory in November will mean nothing but endless investigations of the president. The mainstream press has picked up on this theme too. So does that mean Democrats should avoid the subject for fear of looking hyperpartisan? I think Zack Roth gets the answer right in 'Investi-Gate,' in the June issue of the Monthly:

"Democrats might wish they could avoid talking about their investigative plans. But if they do, the press and the GOP will raise the issue for them, and they'll frame it around the prospect of impeachment. So Democrats might as well meet the challenge head on, and spend the summer making their case. Of course we'll vigorously investigate the administration if we win, they should say. And we'll do so the same way previous Democratic Congresses have investigated GOP presidents: shoulder-to-shoulder with honest Republican lawmakers willing to put country before party. The fact that the current GOP leadership chose to abandon the great American tradition of bipartisan Congressional oversight is no reason Democrats have to follow suit."

Oh, and Paul McCartney doesn't like the coverage of his split from Heather Mills. On his Web site , the ex-Beatle says there is "no truth" to the notion that she married him for his money and that "almost everything I'm reading is 100 percent untrue."