Dayo Olopade in The New Republic makes the case for Al Gore as Vice President.
That seems to me to be a really bad idea. In this excerpt, Olopade explores whether a Gore selection would represent "turning the page:"
There’s a chance that Obama could be bitten by the throwback politics of a Gore selection. (Chris Cillizza has more on the pitfalls of Obama’s “change everything” message.) Josh has made the good point that veeps should serve as party leaders of the future, and that it would be nice to promote a new face onto the national scene. I think that’s valid, but that Whitcover’s point still stands. No potential veeps mentioned are a total blank slate—nor should they be.
Of course, Carville is allied closely with both Clintons, and Gore, though he distanced himself from Bill Clinton in 2000 (most notably with the choice of Joe Lieberman as veep), never got the official “Judas” touch. Which begs the question: Is this change--or worse, some kind of backdoor Clinton scheme to stay hitched to power? Perhaps the CNN boosterism is tat for Hillary’s 2000 Senate run, which in countless ways split the attention of the two popular campaigners. Perhaps, dare I say, it’s an entrée for Hillary to run with Gore in 2016?Cheney was never interested in the big one, but has still been "hell, yeah"-ed for a McCain administration. Could that be the case for Albert Gore, Jr.?
There's a chance Obama could be bitten by the throwback politics of a Gore selection? Right. And there's a chance that gas prices will go up tomorrow. Oh, yeah - there's also a chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. I wouldn't see it as a backdoor Clinton scheme, but I would see it as a repudiation of just about everything Obama has said on the campaign trail so far.
And of course, that whole ManBearPig thing would have to be dealt with.
(Hat tip: Althouse)