Believing the Unbelievable

It's just being whispered now -- barely. Nobody's really taking it seriously -- yet. But as time goes on and we get closer to the conventions, it just might be seen as a plausible scenario.

And what is that scenario, you ask?

Eleanor Clift writes about it in the online edition of Newsweek:

Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It goes like this: We love them both, but neither is a sure bet when it comes to electability. It's not about gender and race, each has more mundane vulnerabilities. Hillary's negatives will drive white men to John McCain; Obama's inexperience will require a gut check on the part of voters. What if the super delegates decide not to decide, denying either candidate the requisite number of delegates to secure the party's nomination. Democrats want to win. The new rallying cry: Gore on the second ballot.

This is a science fiction scenario, right? Could never happen. Not really.

Could it?

Well, actually it could -- at least in theory. Clift claims that the last time a convention went to a second ballot was 1952, which is probably wrong -- it was 1956, when Adlai Stevenson left the decision of a vice-presidential nominee up to the delegates. The contenders were Al Gore (the current Al Gore's father), Estes Kefauver and a young senator from Massachusetts named John F. Kennedy. Kefauver won the nomination and the Stevenson/Kefauver ticket went down to defeat against Eisenhower and Nixon.

But Obama's going to win -- right? He's got it all locked up -- right?

Not exactly. Clift gives a surprisingly plausible scenario:

How could this unfold? Superdelegates are not bound to any candidate. They can do what they want, including changing their mind or withholding an endorsement until the balloting begins. Delegates won in the primaries go to the party's convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular candidate, but one of the biggest myths of the delegate selection process, according to a Democratic National Committee document, is that delegates are bound to follow that pledge on the first ballot. A delegate is asked to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them," a provision designed in part to make the convention a deliberative body. If Hillary's attempts to secure the nomination are seen as illegitimate, and they fail, yet Obama is not seen as a clear victor, Gore's name could be introduced. All it would take is a delegate perhaps from Tennessee, his home state, to raise a point of order, and with backing from five other state delegations, Gore's name could be put in play as a prospective nominee.

Okay, it's still implausible. Unlikely to put it mildly. Odds are that Obama's going to win on the first ballot.

But you have to admit, it's fun to think about. When was the last time a political convention was worth watching? 1972, maybe?

But on a more serious note, the main reason why it's worth thinking about is that Democrats need to win in 2008. We have to take the country away from the lunatics and into the hands of people who will restore it to its rightful place in the world. Who will help to fix its ruined economy and give the middle class a break. We can't take a chance that the Republicans will steal yet another election.

Clift puts it quite nicely:

Surely [Gore] would happily take Obama as his running mate, ending the Clinton dynasty and positioning the Democrats for a potential 16-year reign at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A Gore-Obama ticket would be unstoppable, the thinking goes, matching the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain, on national security and experience, while embodying a powerful message of change.

Bring it on, baby. That's all I have to say.

Tom Moran