Apart from the awards, not only could Gore claim that he had been a fairly effective senator and a reasonably competent vice president, he could also present himself in zeitgeist terms as the candidate who was on the right side of the two great overarching questions: the climate crisis and the war in Mesopotamia. Should I add that, whether or not he really won the Electoral College in 2000, he did manage to collect the majority of the popular vote? Several people, some of them well-informed, have been saying to me that Gore will wait until the Nobel committee's announcement before he makes up his mind. Should he make up his mind to run, he could alter the entire equation.
As Adam commented in email when he sent this to me "Unfortunately, he still manages to be an unbelievable asshole in this piece." Indeed, as you'll agree if you go to the trouble to read the rest of the article. I would also note the fact that Hitchens displays his legendary mischievous contrariness, in endorsing a candidate who appears less and less likely to run with each passing week. How clever! Personally I'm contrary enough to Hitchens to want to endorse someone else after reading Hitchens' love-fest, but I have some principles.