In the past week, we've been treated to two different columns that explore the possibilities if Al Gore is announced as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Oct. 12. Brent Budowsky at The Hill thinks it would single-handedly restore America's image around the world:
From the immediate surge of media attention until the aftermath of Gore's acceptance speech there will be a profound surge of international and national attention to what Al Gore stands for, and what he has done.
For the first time since Sept. 11, 2001 was hijacked as a pretext for the Iraq war, there will be a powerful, compelling and global discussion of the America that has been and should always be a genuine beacon of hope and light for the world.
Christopher Hitchens says Gore's waiting until after the prize-winner is announced to decide about running for president, and that his entire political career would be a wash if he wins and doesn't jump in the Democratic primary:
Should he make up his mind not to run, he would retrospectively abolish all the credit he has acquired so far. It would mean in effect that he never had the stuff to do the job and that those who worked and voted for him were wasting their time. Given his age and his stature, can he really want that to be the conclusion that history draws?
Both pieces are rife with strained (and strange) projections and undue prognosticating about a man that, even without the Nobel Prize, will have had one of the best years any American politician could hope for – a bestselling book, an Oscar, an Emmy, and both the ear and favor of other world leaders. Yet in the American political realm and the media, he still faces widespread derision and distrust. Why would he take the chance of having his legacy as the understated statesman marred by yet another disastrous run for the White House?
--Kate Sheppard
