So, apparently Ezra wrote some article on Al Gore. It's time to weigh in with my thoughts. While I thought Ezra's analysis of Gore's new approach to reaching the public through "disintermediation" was interesting and spot-on accurate, I'm not totally in agreement with the final twist. That, of course, would be why Gore could use this phenomenon to be successful in another presidential campaign. While I think Gore would probably make an excellent president--a separate matter entirely--he has a major vulnerability as a candidate that Ezra, and others urging Gore to run, ignore, despite how obvious it is.
I subscribe to the Jacob Weisberg philosophy of presidential general elections (not primaries), which is that charisma, especially on television, is far and away the most important quality in any candidate. In every election in my lifetime the more charismatic candidate, like Reagan and Clinton, has won. The only arguable exception was 2000, where the more charismatic candiate (Bush) assumed office, but through theft rather than honest victory. Even so, given Gore's institutional advantages as a sitting Vice-President in peace and prosperity, (and posessing a greater intellect, more impressive record, and greater desire to be president than his opponent) the charisma gap is the primary explanation for why Bush even got close enough to steal it.
Having seen Gore give one of his Moveon speeches in person I can testify that his charisma deficiency is alive and well. Moveon members love him now because he was martyred and because he's telling it like it is, but you don't hear them even pretending that he's as fun to watch as Bill Clinton. Various studies have demonstrated that swing voters who make up their mind in the final days before an election choose on superficial factors rather than policy. That makes intuitive sense also: if they really cared about policy they'd already know who they're voting for, because the policy differences are usually pretty clear. They just can't decide who they like more.
Well, I have news for you: he may be prophetic about global warming, he may be suitably hawkish yet sensibly opposed to the Iraq War, he may be fiscally responsible yet truly compassionate and empirical in his domestic policy formulation, he may be the only Democrat who can stop Hillary in the primaries and he's certainly a stronger candidate than her in the general, but he won't win if the Republicans nominate a charismatic candidate. Unless the whole Nixon 1968 analogy is right and I'm wrong. I guess it's possible, but I think Gore boosters should at least acknowledge the charisma problem and propose solutions.
