Gold is recommended as the best or "real" money for various reasons, including the following.

Before fancy engraving techniques or reliable computerized monetary exchange mechanisms such as the Automated Clearing House (ACH), governments required a mechanism to represent money that was within the technological capacity of the government but outside the capacity of most counterfeiters. Outside of a few delightful alternatives such as tally sticks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_sticks), the most common and long standing such mechanism has been struck precious metal coins. What made them money wasn't exactly their metal content. What made them money was the social contract created by government decree. Usually the raw metal content of struck coins is less valuable than the coins nominal monetary value, sometimes much less.

Gold lacks some of the grevious flaws of debt based money. It has natural constraints on its growth, and it does not provide excessive profit to bankers for essentially unproductive activity. However golds availability is only approximately what is needed. Sometimes it can be too great when new sources are found such as Aztecs or California gold mines. Sometimes it can be too little in an economic boom due to legitimate increased in production or distribution efficiency. That debt based money has flaws doesn't prove gold "is" money.

Gold may or may not be a good investment. Certainly I am envious of iTulipers who invested in gold over the last several years. But past performance is no indication of future returns. That gold has been a good dollar denominated investment for the last few years doesn't make it "real money" however.

Money is not essentially a physical thing. It is part of the legal and economic fabric of more complex societies, part of the legal and social contract.