Progressives need a candidate against Obama

As the Senate begins debate on extending Bush-era tax cuts, many Democrats are still venting their anger over President Obama's deal with Republicans that extend the cuts of the wealthiest Americans in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and other deficit-raising programs. Some Democrats are even talking openly of challenging Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries. This nascent movement was a topic of discussion on NPR Wednesday. The problem is, the angry Democrats have to find a viable candidate to hang their hopes on.

The solution to this problem should be quickly obvious: former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is available. John has received a boost in publicity recently with the death Tuesday of his estranged wife, much-admired suffering spouse and author Elizabeth Anania Edwards. John should fit the mold of the "progressive" Democrats because he spent two presidential campaigns talking about the poor in this country and identifying with the common folk. Edwards' stock speech was all about helping the poor and striking back at the oligarchs and big business. He even ran an anti-poverty think tank, which was intended to keep him occupied between presidential campaigns.

Not only would he fit the mold and have the progressives' sought-after list of priorities, but Edwards would also have the sympathy vote on his side, thanks to his wife's death from cancer. That sympathy would help him with the women's vote — after all, Elizabeth encouraged him to continue his presidential campaign even after she received her cancer diagnosis. His affair with a campaign videographer might add a few votes from the wayward husbands voter bloc, thereby covering all the key electoral constituencies.

Edwards will need a running mate of course, and I hear Al Gore isn't doing much these days. Gore would bolster the "progressive" ticket. In 2000, his speeches always included pedantic rants against big business, big pharma, big insurance, big oil, big coal, big trouble and Big Macs. The campaign theme should be apparent: Against the big boys; for the little guys.

For progressives, it's a dream ticket: Edwards-Gore in 2012.

If Gores can't stay married, who can?

Al and Tipper Gore's announcement this week that they are separating after 40 years of marriage shouldn't bother me, but it does. I have not been a big fan of Gore, whom I met briefly in 1987 or '88 when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination (he dropped out not long after I met him at a campaign speech at Barton College). Nuclear disarmament was his cause then, and he was as earnest about it as he is about global warning now.

It had appeared to me, through Gore's vice presidency and the 2000 presidential campaign, that Gore had a solid, stable marriage with a good woman. They had faced some adversity in their lives and had been each other's support in crisis. They had enjoyed some success as well. The famed kiss when Tipper introduced Al at the Democratic Convention in 2000 seemed overdone but somehow endearing as well. The Gores were close in age to me and my wife, and they had married just a year before we had.

While political and celebrity marriages often aren't meant to last, the Gores' seemed to be the exception. Some analysts are saying their separation is typical of the difficulty of maintaining a relationship over a period of decades. Even couples who get through the early years of adjustment, frustration and temptation might not be able to swim the latter years when marriage might seem less purposeful and goal-oriented. The Gores said they had "grown apart."

I find myself still looking forward to a future that is tied inextricably to the togetherness we've known for 39 years, but maybe I'd better be cautious about any signs of divergent interests and emotional detachment. I'd like to get beyond whatever it was that tore the Gores apart.