Nominating Gore to be their candidate for President would be a big mistake. Of course, nominating either Obama or Clinton isn't going to do them any favors, either. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and damned if you pick 'other'," it sounds like.
Clinton or Obama have a greater chance of winning the election than either one paired with Gore would.
If nominating Clinton over Obama would lose the Demokrats the black vote, what do they think choosing Gore would do? Gore's just as white as Clinton is. It's likely that if Obama's not their pick, the black voters will stay home and hand the presidency to McCain.
But if Clinton isn't the pick, it's likely that the NAG gang will stay home and hand the presidency to McCain.... You see the problem here? Nominating Gore would just piss off both groups.
Demokrat party fears tight finish to primary season. ...as this article attests.
The Democrats have built themselves a strange bed to lie in. Proportional delegates, "superdelegates", etc, have put them in the place they're in. Regardless of what the rank-and-file Dems do, the superdelegates can make their own decision. (Strangely, this is awfully reminiscent of how the commies like to do things: if the people vote the "right" way, it's all well and good, but if they don't, the elites can still make things go the "right" way.)
If there is no clear winner by the time of the convention--and if the Democrats decide to "punt" by nominating Gore--it's going to be a bloodbath in November. If the Democrats select the black guy, the feminists will stay home; and if they select the feminist, the blacks will stay home.
There is probably a way out of this situation which doesn't involve massive vote fraud--not that that will stop it from happening in certain famous places such as Chicago--but I'm switched if I can think of what it is.