« Replicating Silicon Valley | Main | How I Participate In The Blog World »
Looking For A Leader
I wrote a post several weeks ago after reading a NY Times article about the Democratic party's search for a "vision". I shared it with The Gotham Gal and a few friends. They all liked it. But by the time I had gotten their feedback, I didn't like it enough to post it. Funny how that happens. Blogging for me requires an immediate "submit". When I think about something too much, it never gets on the web.
Last night, along with the rest of the attendees of the D conference, I saw Al Gore interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. It was the highlight of the conference for me and I suspect for many of the attendees. We saw Al Gore speak passionately about his beliefs and the issues facing our country in a moment of crisis (which he defined as when a grave problem meets a big opportunity). After sleeping on his remarks, I want to hit the submit button on the post I wrote. Here's the opening paragraphs of that post:
Leadership requires vision. We want to know where our leader is going to take us. It needs to be articulated clearly, concisely, and without qualification.
I have spent 20 years of my life watching some amazing leaders operate and I have been sold time and time again by a big vision that I couldn’t wait to be part of.
It’s time for my party, the Democratic Party, to articulate its big vision.
There has been a suggestion that the Democratic Party needs to appeal for shared sacrifice and the "common good". That's all fine with me, but I want something more. I want a willigness to move our country forward, to embrace technology and all that it brings us. To stare down the risks we are facing and deal with their root causes. To recognize that our political system is corrupt and needs fundamental change.
I heard all of that and more from Al Gore last night. He sure sounded like he's a candidate in 2008.
The Gotham Gal and I raised money for Gore in 2000. We felt the searing pain of his loss. But we also felt, like most Democrats, that he was a terrible candidate and I have personally avoided thinking much about Al Gore in the past 6 years.
But I've been thinking a lot about Al Gore in the past month.I believe that he ran in 2000 because he was supposed to. He was groomed his entire life to be President. But when it came time for him to run, he didn't really have a "reason to be President" other than the empty wall on his father's home where the pictures of his presidency were supposed to go. That wall is still empty, at least metaphorically.
But the Al Gore I saw last night knows why he must run in 2008. He wants to provide the political leadership that will allow us to deal with the looming ecological crisis. He wants to lead our country, and hopefully the rest of the world, toward a sustainable energy policy. He wants to embrace the power of technology to inform, educate, and provide a platform for political discourse and reason all over the world. He wants to face down the financial corruption of our politcal system. He wants to face down the scourges of terror, genocide, AIDS and other pandemics running rampant in our world. These are the things he cares about. These are the battles he wants to fight.
Al Gore talked last night about where all the Senators were when Robert Byrd spoke to an empty Senate chamber on the eve of the vote to back Bush's war in Iraq. He said they were at cocktail parties all over the country raising money so they can run 30 second spots defending the votes they made.
Al Gore isn't good at that part of the political process. I know. I've raised money for him and he doesn't know who I am. When I shook his hand last night, that was crystal clear. He's not the face to face politician that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are.
And maybe that wil get in the way of him running again. The biggest thing that Al Gore has added to his public persona since 2000 is a self awareness and a self deprecating style. He said last night that, "I am not particularly good at politics". And "I don't like much about politics".
But as Al Gore ended his interview last night with a passioned fiery challenge to everyone in the room, my friend Howard turned to me and said "he's running". I sure hope so. Because I am looking for a leader with a vision and Al Gore has it in spades now.
June 1, 2006 in Politics | Permalink
Comments
I'd bet we'll see Al running in '08.
People are comparing his situation to that of Tricky Dick - a VP thought to be a shoe-in get's beat by a son of wealth and power who manipulates the media better, bows out, spends some time in the private sector, then suddenly, 8 years later, after much national turmoil, the time is right for the former VP.
Sort of the Anti-Dick.
Posted by: jackson | Jun 1, 2006 9:37:26 AM
I'm with you, Fred. I also was a staunch backer in 2000. But I don't think he ran for the wrong reasons. I just think he ran a bad race because he was trying too deliberately to craft a message around consultant and poll driven advice. (And PS, he still won!)
Al Gore running on conviction would be one hell of a candidate in 2008. And I hope he declares early to forestall a Hilary fiasco.
Run, Al, run!
Posted by: Jason Chervokas | Jun 1, 2006 9:51:20 AM
The problem though (and this goes for both parties), is that the party apparatus of experts, handlers, and consultants will turn him into Gore 2000 or Kerry 2004 based on poll results, etc. It's a constant in our two party system that the passion and life we see in people prior to the party nomination vanishes when it matter most.
I've never voted democratic in my life, but I will in 2008 if the candidate can convince me that he believes in a vision greater than "we're not the other guys."
For that matter, I'm open to voting Republican if the candidate convinces me the really is going to make government less intrusive in the daily lives of Americans.
I'm a libertarian at heart, but the facts of life are that both parties are going to grow government, so the question for me in 2008 will be which candidate has a vision to use that power for good?
Posted by: COD | Jun 1, 2006 9:59:16 AM
Very interesting,Fred. Like most people, I voted against Bush rather than for Gore. It will be interesting to see if Gore's redefinition of himself will hold in campaigning. COD has it right - can his image hold up against his own pollsters and image makers?
Posted by: Diane Ensey | Jun 1, 2006 10:13:18 AM
I think it's very naive to assume that Gore is a viable candidate, or, if nominated, would win the election.
It's a fool's errand. Get out of the echo chamber in which you live, Fred, and see what the nation's people think about Gore. The audience you refer to likely is not a representative sample.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 1, 2006 11:16:06 AM
A speach therapist/analyst looked at the 04 presidential debates and concluded that they were conducted at about a fifth grade level of word use and sophistication.
Good god, that is so pathetic it makes me sick.
So how does a candidate with something to really say break out of the sound bite mentality.
And would they be allowed to do so.
Posted by: Tom Labus | Jun 1, 2006 11:32:55 AM
While the Gore 2008 meme has become a part of every movie-related interview or appearance he gives, there's one question (which Dave above obliquely refers to) that doesn't get asked: How can he *not* run?
Sure, pollsters and handlers have their effect on any candidate, campaign. But that discounts one very important point -- the effect Gore as he is, if only at this moment, will have on any other candidate running.
If he were to run, and I ask "How can he not?", his problems will be staying on message as he presented it at D and avoiding a rhetorical climate of "I told you so."
Posted by: Michael | Jun 1, 2006 1:01:52 PM
Tom: Interesting - care to provide a link to this analysis?
Posted by: New West Living | Jun 1, 2006 3:05:30 PM
The insurmountable problem with Al Gore as Presidential candidate can be summed up in one word: Tennessee. When he ran, he did not even carry his own home state. Even Michael Dukakis and George McGovern did that. Gore is not a viable candidate -- and the party should not nominate him -- if the people who know him best won't elect him President.
Posted by: steve | Jun 2, 2006 6:00:15 AM
I know one sure-fire way for the democrats to win the next election... nominate Rudy!
I realize he is a republican but he could never get the republican nomination (3x divorced, pro-choice, etc.). He could get the democratic nomination (if the dems wise up) and be able to snatch up all the moderate republicans come election time.
If the dems want to win they need this type of creative thinking, not by nominating the same people all over again.
Posted by: daniel | Jun 2, 2006 8:53:49 AM
Rudy? Sorry, no Nazis on the Dem ticket, thanks anyway.
Posted by: jackson | Jun 2, 2006 2:15:16 PM
jacksno just shows one of the major problems the democrats have. not just complaining about policies or anythign, but flat out calling rudy (a fairly centrist republican) a NAZI.
Godwin, etc. But for crying out loud. Cleaning up NYC and helping the city back from the brink of 2 major crises and he;s a nazi? Oy!
Posted by: hey | Jun 2, 2006 10:10:11 PM
We really need to talk about politics sometime.
Democrats don't just lack vision, they lack the plan to get there and the courage of their convictions. And there's a difference between the inside party (candidates, funders, party, consultants, lobbyists for corporations) and the outside party (voters).
You straddle the line--you buy into what the inside party is selling to the outside party every few years, and you feel like you're participating in democracy. But you're not. And Al Gore now gets this, and it resonates. Because we've been starved for so long, the first recognizable challenge to it thrills us: Dean in 2004 (until the inside party took him down and assimilated him) and now Al Gore(a lifetime member of the inside party that now rejects him because he took a nap, woke up and realized what a sham he's been a part of for so long).
At opensecrets.org we can see your campaign contributions. How many insiders have you funded who are also funded by GE through the "legal" PAC system? how many of those people sound great but don't lead, fail to show up, and vote questionably?
Follow the money, learn the intent, witness the results. Then choose what you're going to do next. I hope it's different.
Posted by: Charlie Crystle | Jun 2, 2006 10:48:06 PM
Many of the posts echo my feeling on Al Gore and politics in general. Sure, Al is on passionate many of the things I feel are important: focus on technology, environment, etc. But I know that these are issues that people outside of a certain section of the country, and probably outside of a certain economic status, don't care about or more importantly, won't make a trade-off or sacrifice to care about. I figure that Gore appeals to about 5% of the country and the epicenter is a community which reads blogs like this. Democratic politics seems to be about appealing to the lowest common denominator and Republican politics feels like it is about appealing to as many important interest groups as you can. George W. certainly found some big ones who like to vote (envangelicals, for example). If you think embracing technology will be that "big tent" issue which brings together a Democratic and independent base, you're living in a fantasy land. Same for the environment (which will be spun as a "are you're telling me not to drive?") I live in a City with great mass transit -- that works for me, but how about the rest of the country?
Posted by: jonathan | Jun 4, 2006 8:12:40 AM
Fred, I've been having similiar thoughts recently. The New York magazine article got us all thinking.
Before that, I had been thinking that new people were the only hope (people like Obama).
But who knows. Luckily, we've got some time for this to play out. Looking forward to the mid-term elections!
Posted by: Paul Lightfoot | Jun 4, 2006 8:21:19 PM
I’ve been considering your post for several days – it has made me think about whether or not I want Gore to run and whether I would support him in the primaries – and I have concluded that I don’t want him to force us to face that decision.
Here’s why: to me, our party is and has been for a long time, the party that believes in investing in the future - looking beyond today, past individual, even selfish, short term goals towards a vision where the quality of life for all people continuously improves. I find that the broad concept of “investing in the future” is the common thread that runs through the Democratic Party's positions, e.g., education, head start, worker training, health care coverage, infrastructure, international alliances, birth control, the environment, the deficit, etc., etc.
This message would resonate with most Americans if it was expressed in this way - “investing” is a more positive term than “shared sacrifice” or “common good” - but for some reason, few of our candidates identify, articulate or sell this theme (the exception being Clinton in Putting People First and when he chose to use “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”).
When you talk about our need as a country to embrace technology, stare down risk and find the root causes of problems, I think you are saying the same thing – something we all want – but I think of it as investing the time and energy in fixing the system.
Here is where my thoughts come back to Al Gore: I don’t think he is a candidate that can effectively gain support for this message of needing to “invest in the future” and therefore, he can’t overcome the structural barriers that a Democrat must do to win the national election. I can be convinced that he sincerely wants to lead the country and face those challenges you listed, but he had his chance, he made terrible strategic mistakes, he lost when he should have won and - bottom line - I don’t believe he can reinvent himself sufficiently to sincerely and effectively sell this theme of required investment. Hopefully there is a Democrat who can.
Posted by: rich caccappolo | Jun 5, 2006 5:53:38 PM
