Al Gore - the President who never was

By RUPERT CORNWELL

Once upon a time, when America was innocent and the chattering classes were exercised with dangling chads and undervotes and sundry other harmless electoral mishaps in the state of Florida, there was a Democratic politician called Al Gore. Remember him? He was the one who was on the losing end of the closest presidential election in US history - if indeed it was the losing end.

Officially he was defeated by George W. Bush by 537 votes in the Sunshine State. But if we are to believe the exhaustive review conducted by US media organisations and belatedly released this month, the true result was even closer still.

On the narrowest measure, including the four counties where Gore requested the recounts that were ultimately halted by the US Supreme Court, Bush would probably still have shaded it, by just 225 votes. A state-wide recount, on the other hand, might have handed victory to Gore by an even narrower margin of between 100 and 170 votes. Gore supporters maintain that had Florida used technology that allowed people to record the ballot they intended (instead of, say, voting twice on the same ballot paper, or voting by accident for the likes of Pat Buchanan), their man would have prevailed by 15,000-45,000 votes statewide.

Alas, poor Al. For his supporters that is only a small fraction of the injustice visited upon him. The number that should matter, they say, is not 537 but 537,000 - the margin by which Gore led Bush in the national popular vote, only to have victory snatched from him by the electoral college.

A year ago, the wrangling was in full swing, but no one had a notion of the truly significant happenings in Florida: classes taken by a handful of Arab students, learning how to pilot airliners.

It seems fair to say that, before September 11, a Gore presidency would almost certainly have seemed very different - to foreign eyes - from a Bush one. The author of Earth in the Balance certainly would not have alienated much of the world by rejecting the Kyoto pact on global warming. There would probably have been no post-Clinton disengagement from the Middle East, and no wholesale dismissal of treaties deemed not to be in America's interests.

But the fearful deeds of one morning have changed every calculation. The hard fact is that privately, and in some cases publicly, most leading Democrats are relieved that George Bush occupies the White House. This reflects a pleasant surprise at the way Bush has visibly grown into his job - and, above all, a sense of reassurance about the people around him.

Not that a Gore cabinet would have been lightweight, or that he would have conducted a less forceful military campaign.

Had Gore won, the men around him would have been impressive. "One of the smartest men I know," is how one foreign envoy describes Leon Fuerth, Gore's foreign policy adviser, who would probably have been his National Security Adviser. Ditto Richard Holbrooke, the forceful architect of the 1995 Dayton peace accords for Bosnia and probable Secretary of State under Gore. As Vice-President, Joe Lieberman would surely have been a safe pair of hands. But collectively, these men hardly match the experience of Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. In all likelihood, the conduct of the war by a Gore administration would not have been so different. Policy would have been formed by the same set of generals before being sent up the ladder for political approval.

Some important things, though, might have been different. It is hard to imagine Gore embarking on the same rapprochement with Russia, if that meant turning a blind eye to Moscow's brutal war in Chechnya. Middle East policy is another question. A Democratic President with a practising Jew as Vice-President? Might this not have interfered with a Gore effort to keep moderate Arab leaders on board during the bombing of a Muslim country?

Today, Gore is busy on a book, and works the academic lecture circuit.

A post-election yearning for comfort foods saw him put on a lot of weight. The extra girth has virtually disappeared. Not so the beard he acquired on a holiday to Europe, which lends an air of mystery that he always lacked in office.

Today, friends say, Gore is a wiser but not a broken man. Defeat, and the adjustment to travel by rented Chevrolet Impala instead of sealed official motorcade, have enabled him to connect with people in a way he rarely did as Vice-President. The circumstances of his loss irk him, but today he turns them into jokes. "Some of them you win, some you lose - and then there's that little-known third category. Think about it," he laughs, referring to the Supreme Court ruling.

Gore hasn't made up his mind whether to make a third run in 2004. But he no longer has the inside track as the sitting Vice-President, with the party apparatus and the White House's powers of patronage lined up behind him. Conventional wisdom has it that he will not be the party's nominee in 2004. He had his chance in a very winnable election, but blew it - and how come a man who was preparing for the Presidency for seven years managed to get through three campaign managers in the last six months? Sure, he was unfortunate with the electoral college. But if Gore had held his home state of Tennessee, all the dramas in Florida would have been irrelevant.

When the party faithful are asked who they would like to see carrying the Democratic standard in the next election, Gore still commands more support than any putative rival. But that may reflect no more than name recognition.

As for Bush-Gore, the rematch - "How would you vote if the election were held tomorrow?" - the former Vice-President who beat Bush by 0.5 per cent in the popular vote 12 months ago is today on the wrong end of a theoretical 61-35 landslide.

The pretenders are queuing: the popular Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, his colleagues John Kerry and John Edwards, House minority leader Richard Gephardt, not to mention Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

Which leaves poor Al firmly in the margins of history - which is a tragedy both personal and public. Was an American politician ever more obviously born to the purple? Son of a senator, a senator and Vice-President himself, thoroughly versed in both domestic and foreign affairs, on the right side of almost every issue, Gore appeared on a steady path to the top.

Yet throughout something was lacking. Humour, spontaneity perhaps - but above all, that priceless political gift of timing. Take the beard. Trust Al Gore to grow one just when thousands of joyful Afghans are shaving theirs off.

- INDEPENDENT