As Al Gore becomes a "demigod," the Democratic race suddenly gets nasty

Everyone now no doubt has read all about Al Gore winning the Peace Nobel Prize. The big speculation now is what Gore intends to do in the presidential race -- Will he endorse Edwards or Obama? Will he turn to Hillary Clinton (he has huge issues with her, but if he truly believes that Clinton is inevitable he might want to secure a high-profile position in her Administration)? Or could he have in mind a run of his own?

However more exciting politics would become with a Gore run, it is very unlikely that he will jump in the nomination fight. The calculation is essentially the same it was a year ago, and CNN confirmed today what we all guessed to be true: Al Gore would love running for president again, but he would only do so if the nomination was handed to him on a silver-platter. He has no desire of getting involved in a bruising primary process, especially when the race has such a clear front-runner. Al Gore has acquired a different stature in Democratic politics since 2000, so why would he risk it all to become just another politician?

The rhetoric today was way over-the-top. Rahm Emmanuel probably went the farthest, asking in the New York Times,"Why would he run for president when he can be a demigod? He now towers over all of us because he’s pure." The Nation is begging him to jump in, while the Spiegel echoes Emmanuel from abroad. Gore has truly elevated himself to the City of God, and above the petty affairs of men:

Al Gore -- almost-president, climate change icon and now Nobel Peace Prize winner -- transcends politics. He has done so for a long time, and now he certainly hovers far above the swamp of an election campaign, with its mudslinging, tedious debates and populism in the provinces. He is of a far different caliber: a statesman who was never head of state. At his last appearance before a large audience, Gore happily sat on stage with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Someone like that no longer concerns himself with questions about his position on the abortion debate or which taxes he wants to cut.

Such rhetoric makes very little sense. Gore would probably be happy to draft tax policy or the fight for social rights. But before he can do so, he would have to take down the Hillary Clinton juggernaut and then survive the Republican smear machine. Certainly, for many progressives who are troubled by Clinton's moderation and yet are unconvinced of Barack Obama's sincerity and progressive credentials, Al Gore seems like a perfect solution. I myself would be incredibly drawn to his candidacy. But don't count on it. Gore has until the end of the NH filing period (on November 2nd) to figure all of this out.

Meanwhile, the Obama-Clinton dogfight became very nasty today. A day after Obama hit Clinton over her Iran vote, Clinton fought back by accusing her rival of resorting to negative campaigning and abandoning the "politics of hope:"

There have been three major developments in the race this month: Senator Clinton has broken 50 percent in several primary polls, she outraised the other candidates in the third quarter and her opponents have entered a new season of the campaign that they call "clear contrast." Most others call it negative campaigning. Related? You bet... Apparently Senator Obama’s fall in the polls has led him to abandon his pledge to change our politics and bring people together.

And she went on to directly rebut Obama's argument by attacking him for having missed that very same vote on Iran:

Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor... He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote... In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it. If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it? So perhaps something else is at work: politics.

Clinton has got a point here, that Obama did not say anything on this subject at the Dartmouth debate that took place a few hours only after the Iran vote he missed. I commented at the time that Obama could not afford to attack Clinton on this since he had missed the vote -- but Obama ended up doing so nonetheless.

And then came Obama's response, much more sharp than Clinton's memo, accusing her of systematically posturing and triangulating in the belief that she is already marching towards her coronation. After listing every subject on which Clinton has flip-flopped (Social Security, diplomacy, torture...), Obama concludes, "While the Clinton campaign attempts to duck legitimate questions on their way to their believed coronation, we will stay focused on telling the American people not just what they want to hear but what the need to hear." Check out the full memo too, since the Obama camp also outlines its candidate's strength in the early states and calls Clinton the "quasi-incumbent" who has to win every single state to not shatter the inevitability mantra.

This is as engaged as the race has been as of yet, and it is still early October. And notice also how exchanges like this marginalize the Edwards camp: Edwards pounced on Clinton for her Iran vote at that Dartmouth debate and nothing happened. Obama did the same, and sparks started flying! Obama and Clinton are admirably setting the election as a two-way race and both will make sure Gore is marginalized as soon as he gets in as both have so much to lose from a Gore candidacy. Does the former VP really want to get in this kind of race?