Getting Hot

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:22 AM

Al Gore, non-candidate for president of the United States, is suddenly drawing such warm coverage that you wonder whether climate change is melting the hearts of journalists who once portrayed him as a cold fish.

I mean, the guy is being portrayed as a heroic figure saving the planet, with the only outstanding question whether he will heed the call of the masses and run for the job he failed to win in 2000.

What's really striking is that the ex-veep got terrible coverage during that campaign, when he was depicted as an Internet-inventing exaggerator who sighed during the debates and needed a consultant to steer him to an earth-toned wardrobe. Afterward, Gore was savaged for losing an election that was widely viewed as winnable.

Well, that was before he had a hit movie that won a couple of Oscars, I guess. Now there's an awestruck tone to the Gore narrative (as he hits the circuit to publicize a new book):

A Time cover story says that if you were designing the ideal stealth candidate for 2008, "you would want someone like Al Gore--the improbably charismatic, Academy Award--winning, Nobel Prize--nominated environmental prophet with an army of followers and huge reserves of political and cultural capital at his command . . .

"He dedicated himself to a larger cause, doing everything in his power to sound the alarm about the climate crisis, and that decision helped transform the way Americans think about global warming and carried Gore to a new state of grace."

State of grace?

Here's the New York Times Magazine take on the man:

"Al Gore has attained what you can only call prophetic status; and he has done so by acting as he could not, or would not, as a candidate -- saying precisely what he believes, and saying it with clarity, passion, intellectual mastery and even, sometimes, wit."

A prophet?

The magazine reminds us that "the Al Gore of September 2005 was not the Saint Albert of today."

Sainthood?

To his credit, Gore has repeatedly said he's not running, leaving the door only slightly ajar. It's the media that seem determined to draft him. As I'm typing, CNN is promoting a Larry King interview tonight with the headline "Will He Run for President?" If Gore got in, of course, he'd be just another mortal and would start getting kicked around again. Same goes for the other Tennessee Titan, Fred Thompson.

Things couldn't be better for Gore at the moment. He can say what he wants, pursue his passion on global warming, make money on corporate boards and remain just enough of an enigma on the presidential front that it stirs up interest in his book, circa Colin Powell in 1995. But he's written a book with strong denunciations of the Bush administration, so obviously he's going to be asked political questions, and obviously that boosts his value in the media marketplace.

As Jake Tapper notes, Gore's "The Assault on Reason" includes "the charge that the president -- particularly because of the war in Iraq -- 'has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and willfulness . . . If Bush and Cheney actually believed in the linkage (between Iraq and al Qaeda) that they asserted -- in spite of all the evidence to the contrary presented to them contemporaneously--that would by itself in light of the available evidence, make them genuinely unfit to lead our nation. On the other hand, if they knew the truth and lied, massively and repeatedly, isn't that worse? Are they too gullible or too dishonest?'(TM)"

No wonder people think he's still dreaming of the Oval Office.

At the Politico, Ben Smith offers some pros for the nonexistent Gore run, but also some cons:

"Despite a media perception that he's remade himself into a post-partisan prophet, national polls suggest that he remains nearly as divisive a figure as Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Only 49 percent of Americans view him favorably, and 43 percent view him unfavorably, according to the USA Today/Gallup survey. Gore's popularity, which peaked after his global warming documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' took home an Oscar, has drifted back down.

"As for the current season of cover stories and cheerleading, Gore knows better than most that his fans in the media aren't exactly the most constant of friends."

You can say that again.

What is it with our fascination with these non-candidates? Ryan Lizza had a great line on my CNN show Sunday: "Not running is the new running." Why stand up on a debate stage with 10 other folks if you can be a stealth candidate? Here's Peggy Noonan on Fred Thompson:

"He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign. It's a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn't homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn't it bad that colleges don't teach military history? How about that Sarkozy--good news, isn't it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

"These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they're not heavy, not homework. They have an air of 'This is the sound of a candidate thinking.' That's an unusual sound . . .

"Mr. Thompson will have to answer this question: What is he running to do? Why should the Republicans get another eight years, or four years, after all the missteps they've made? Isn't conservatism, or Republicanism, or whatever you call it, just tired? Isn't it over? Isn't America just waiting for whatever will take its place?"

Maybe only declared candidates have to answer those questions.

Mitt Romney--who is running--is in first place in this Des Moines Register poll of likely GOP caucus-goers.

Joe Klein's conclusion: "I suspect something is going on here, though, and my gut--which has been through nine Iowa's worth of political agita--says Romney, in his aw-shucks slickness, just seems like the sort of guy Republicans tend to nominate. Rudy is too New Yawk; McCain, too independent. Romney has put together a campaign that is carefully calibrated to appeal to the GOP grassroots--unadventurous in every way."

Romney is certainly drawing McCain's attention, as Captain Ed notes in reporting on a conference call with bloggers:

"Mitt Romney has been trying to make quite a bit of political hay out of the compromise immigration bill -- he sees it as one of John McCain's key weaknesses as relates to the Republican base and a great way to differentiate himself as the One True Conservative in the race (at least until Fred Thompson jumps in) . . .

"Mr. McCain fired back at the former Massachusetts governor, who has (of course) held varying positions on immigration over the years. 'Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes,' Mr. McCain said of Mr. Romney's position on immigration this week. 'Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard.'(TM)"

McCain also said his blowup at Sen. John Cornyn in a closed-door session on immigration wasn't as bad as reported and he wished it had been on YouTube. Well, maybe.

Everyone said the Democrats would have to back off on their war-funding demands, and it seems to have happened:

"Scrambling to send President Bush an emergency war spending bill he will sign," says the L.A. Times, "Democratic leaders have decided to drop their insistence on a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. "The move -- which comes just days after senior Democrats insisted that White House officials should support nonbinding timelines -- is a significant concession to the president and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill, who steadfastly have rejected any dates for bringing U.S. troops home. "But it reflects the simple mathematics of a closely divided Congress in which Democrats cannot muster veto-proof majorities for any proposal that would compel a pullout."

Other than Bill, who's on the cover of Newsweek, the spouse who seems to be attracting the most attention these days is Michelle. Salon's Debra Dickerson isn't happy about her career choice:

"You knew it had to happen.

"Damn it all, Michelle Obama has quit her $215,000 dream job and demoted herself to queen. Though the party line is that she's only 'scaled back' to a 20 percent workload, I doubt her former co-workers will bother alerting her to many staff meetings. She's traded in her solid gold résumé, high-octane talent and role as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals to be a professional wife and hostess.

"Now, the energy and drive that had her up jogging before dawn and a gratifying day of work and family will mainly be spent smiling for the cameras. Just as we watch curvy, healthy-looking singers and actresses like Lindsay Lohan become anorexic too-blonde hoochies before our very eyes, so we're now in danger of having to watch the political version of that process: Any day now, Michelle Obama's handlers will have her glued into one of those Sunday-go-to-meeting Baptist grandma crown hats while smiling vapidly for hours at a time. When, of course, she's not staring moonstruck, à la Nancy Reagan, at her moon doggie god-husband who's not one bit smarter than she is.

"My heart breaks for her just thinking about it. Being president will be hard. So will being first lady for the brilliant Michelle -- imagine, having to begin all your sentences with 'My husband and I . . . ' "

Uh . . . maybe she wants to do this?

Jimmy Carter has backed off his "worst in history" charge against George W. Bush, saying on "Today" that his remarks "were maybe careless or misinterpreted" and that he "certainly was not talking personally about any president."

Come on. Carter was calling the Bush administration the worst since 1789 in terms of America's standing the world, and that's pretty personal. Frank Lockwood of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, who conducted the interview, has the tape on his blog.

Dinesh D'Souza is pretty annoyed:

"We all know what a lousy president Carter was. One indicator: a sitting president could only win six states against Ronald Reagan in 1980. Another indicator: even Democrats won't defend his presidency. But Carter has somehow convinced the pundits that he's one of America's best ex-presidents . . .

"Carter has basically become a national nuisance. Yes, I admire him for his home-building with Habitat for Humanity. But how many homes has he built lately? He is constantly meddling in foreign policy with inane statements that only remind us of why we threw him out on the street."

At Americablog, Joe Sudbay blames 43, not 39:

"Instead of dealing with the underlying Iraq crisis, the Bush staff attack their enemies. If they put as much time and energy into the policy of Iraq as they do the politics, they might make some progress. All Carter said what most Americans are thinking."

Hillary has never been a netroots favorite, but Matt Stoller at MyDD believes that may be changing:

"The most interesting piece of the new Daily Kos straw poll is Hillary's doubling of support, from 3 to 6. She's not at an all-time netroots high, and is the only candidate aside from 'I don't know' and Gravel that is gaining.

"This could be a blip, but I'm going to guess that it's a bit more than that. And I'm going to guess, based on the polling trends of the last month, that it's wider than the blogs, but picks up on the whole liberal internet-infused organizing movement . . .

"1) No one is putting up a fight. I have heard virtually no direct criticisms of her from any of the candidates.

"2) The other campaigns are getting weaker. Obama's rise has hit a ceiling, and Edwards is not running a particularly coherent or inclusive campaign. Richardson is out of step with the times.

"3) Clinton is a charismatic television figure and she's beginning to inspire liberals . . .

"4) This is a blip."

But liberal suspicions are underscored by this Nation cover story by Ari Berman:

"If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign.

"Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay . . .

"Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists."

And here's a new twist for radio: getting canceled before you say a word:

"After several days of criticism for inviting Bernard McGuirk onto its airwaves, WRKO yesterday canceled the appearance by the former producer for shock jock Don Imus," says the Boston Globe.

"McGuirk was slated to begin a three-day stint tomorrow as a guest on a talk show hosted by former [Mass.] House speaker Tom Finneran -- an appearance that station officials had said was a try out for the man who first said the word 'ho' in the on-air conversation that led to Imus's downfall.

"George Regan , a spokesman for Entercom Communications, the parent company of WRKO, declined to say why the invitation was rescinded. But over the weekend, criticism of the station mounted after statements from a 1997 interview on CBS's '60 Minutes' surfaced. In the interview, Imus was quoted using a racial slur to say that part of McGuirk's job was to tell jokes about blacks on 'Imus in the Morning.'(TM)"