Gore was under 60 in 2004, had universal name recognition as Clinton’s VP, and had won the popular vote four years earlier against Bush. He could have jumped in and made the case that President Gore would have kept us out of Iraq.
Allahpundit has apparently lost his memory, not to mention his mind.
Al Gore could have run (and won) in 2004 on an “I would have kept us out of Iraq” platform?
In the first place, Gore would have begun his campaign at least a year before the November 2004 elections – at which point (five months after “mission accomplished?) Gallup reported that the American people, on the question of whether sending US troops to Iraq was a mistake or not, believed it was not a mistake by a 60-39 margin. Doesn’t sound like a promising campaign strategy to me.
And even immediately before the 2004 election, the same question was, within the margin of error, essentially tied. Winning campaigns are generally not constructed around issues on which the American public is split right down the middle.
Although I have begun to sour on Bush’s by then rapidly mutating (for the worse) strategy in the War on Terror, I still reluctantly voted for the man. Kerry was only grumbling about Iraq at that time, saying that we needed more participatiom from “allies.” I would have been less reluctant to vote for Bush had he been running against somebody who said he would never have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Exit question: If, inexplicably, both Hillary and Joe Biden end up passing next year, why not John Kerry 2.0? Better than Martin O’Malley 1.0, no? Or … Al Gore 2.0?
Aside from the disastrous consequences, I can think of no better way of demonstrating the existence of the Ruling Party than watching Fat AlGore and Jersey Fats Christie try to discover ways of distinguishing themselves from each other politically as the nominees of their respective “parties.”.