MICHAEL KELLY SAYS THAT AL GORE IS UNFIT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE:

This speech, an attack on the Bush policy on Iraq, was Gore’s big effort to distinguish himself from the Democratic pack in advance of another possible presidential run. It served: It distinguished Gore, now and forever, as someone who cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power. Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore’s speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts — bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.

Joe Lieberman is more polite, but he’s down on Gore, too, as is Ed Rendell, who’s running in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. Gore may remember another Tennessean, Frank Clement, who gave a speech that didn’t help his national prospects. How long, oh Lord, how long, has Gore been hitting the wrong note by trying too hard to hit the right one? As someone who was once a big Gore fan (I worked quite hard in his 1988 campaign), I’m just disappointed.

UPDATE: Henry Hanks has done some research.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Stephen Rittenbeg says Gore is just a post-modernist. But Max Sawicky liked the speech! Well, mostly. This, on the other hand, is just plain mean.