Why Gore (Probably) Lost. The pundits have been analyzing to death the question of why he didn’t do better. Three factors are often mentioned, to the point of becoming “received wisdom” already — his flatness of personality and discomfort with himself; his distancing himself from Clinton, crippling him in any attempt to run on his record; and his turn from centrism toward populism. In this essay, Jacob Weisberg is able to show how all of these relate to, and maybe emanate from, his complicated and ambivalent relationship with his late father (and Clinton, as a surrogate father figure). I think he’s on the mark.

Al Gore doesn’t deserve all the vilification that may be about

to be heaped on him. He has done a fine job as vice president

and really does deserve credit for many of the administration’s

accomplishments. Although the ineptitude of his campaign was

frustrating to his supporters, he tried to compensate for it by

working his heart out. Had Bush lost by so narrow a margin,

his defeat would have been attributable to laziness, a failing

Bush has far more control over than Gore has over his. And if

Gore is at fault, so are many of his aides, who we can expect

will soon be pointing the finger elsewhere. And so, too, is the

public, which failed to see through what are, in the scheme of

things, superficial faults to elect the more capable, intelligent,

and experienced man. Slate