Should Al Gore Run?

I'm of the mind that the more candidates the Democrats offer the voters, the better it is for the country. Let there be a full debate and let's not decide the race a full year before the first primary. Here's an article by Saleno Zito in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

If you are a Democrat looking out at the political landscape for whom you want as your presidential candidate, you cannot help being struck by an audacious amount of noise surrounding two potential contenders, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

But beyond the hype stands one candidate who can suck the oxygen right out of their campaigns: former Vice President Al Gore.

(snip)

First, he appeals to the bloggers without being defined by them, at least not in the way that Howard Dean eventually came to be.

Second, he was against the war when it was politically risky to be against the war; Democrat activists remember that, and revere him for it.

The article goes on to talk more about process than substance and mentions that Al Gore might have lost in 2000 because he let himself be micromanaged by his staff. Another problem is that Gore might have to go after the same money as Hillary. But there's a lot more to Gore than simply experience and the ability to raise money. He's a progressive who started talking about a number of issues before others did, probably because he had no expectation of running again which gave him the freedom to tell it like it is; if he runs, he hopefully won't go back to being too cautious.

I respect Al Gore a lot and there's something to be said about the need for someone to be the voice of a party's conscience; right now, that's Al Gore. He still talks like a stiff board but it's a thoughtful board and we're getting used to him. He's our Al Gore. If he runs, I welcome it, but there is something powerful about the role he has been filling for Democrats. It's a hard choice.