sounds good to me. currently, I'm not too excited by the choices so far.

I don't agree that electability is the only factor.
I would not vote (in the primary) for any Democrat who was a war supporter or a tepid opponent.
But, even if electability is the only criterion, I think Gore is best positioned although I don't think Edwards has any serious negatives.
I think Obama is great but I also think that racism is so deep and ingrained in this country that he starts out in a very difficult position.
Hillary does not pass the electability test. Obviously, she could possibly win against the aged hawk McCain but she starts out with half the electorate not liking her.
As for the rest, who knows?
I think Gore is as well-positioned to win as any of them but more qualified than anybody else.
As Jimmy liked to say: why not the best?

I agree except I think Biden would be a good President too.
I don't think any of them comes close to Gore though.

I yearn for a Gore Presidency.

I stood in line for probably 15 minutes to sign a draft Gore Petition at the Take Back America Conference last summer.  I think he's got a combination of brains, integrity, and experience to make a great president.  He made two mistakes in the campaign of 2000, MHO, choosing Joseph Lieberman as his running mate, and distancing himself from Bill Clinton, who never lost his popularity with the electorate, regardless of what the sanctimonious pundit class and his timid campaign handlers said.  Despite those mistakes he still won the popular vote.

One hopes he has learned to handle the Dowds and their ilk in the  interim.  One also hopes that at least some of them understand that they have blood on their hands because their supercilious reporting led to the election of the President who disgraces the office now.

I've made reference to history once or twice before:  at the risk of sounding like a broken record (for you youngsters, that's what we listened to before there were cds), let me recall the "Corrupt Bargain" and the campaign of 1824, and how another Tennessean made use of it to catapult himself into the Presidency (and incidentally laid the cornerstone of the current Democratic Party). 

During the Adams administration, Jackson's supporters, aided by Vice-President Calhoun and Sen. Martin Van Buren, built a powerful political machine dedicated to Jackson's election in 1828. That machine became the nucleus of the Democratic party. Critical of Adams's nationalist policies and lack of concern for state rights, the Jackson organization represented Old Hickory as champion of the common man. They attacked Adams and Clay for the "corrupt bargain" that, they alleged, revealed the aristocratic principles of Adams and Clay and their contempt for democracy. Adams's supporters in turn attacked Jackson for the irregularity of the first years of his marriage and portrayed him as an ignorant and uncouth barbarian. Yet the Jacksonian Democracy was triumphant in 1828. In an election marked by mudslinging and character assassination on both sides, Jackson defeated Adams's bid for a second term.  

Jackson is no particular hero of mine, but he knew how to capitalize on public indignation.  Gore can do the same thing.  He can also, through selecting Obama for his vice presidential running mate, give the party a history-changing ticket.   Thanks for your post, Mr. Rosenberg.  Keep beating those drums. 

aMike

It doesn't make sense.
Marty Peretz and mjrosenberg can't possibly like the same guy.

But then there is the climate crisis ... and Al Gore must also consider the question of whether he will be more effective fighting for change in climate change policy inside the race or outside. Assuming he runs and wins the nomination and wins the presidency ... you'd have to put the balance on the running side. But if he runs, he may not win. And assuming he doesn't run, and another Democrat runs and wins the White House, he can still have tremendous influence on the shape of the House and Senate in organizing the movement to replace climate change pollyanas (Democrats in primaries and Republicans in general elections) with climate change realists.

And there is no term limit to Al Gore's present role.

He remains my second choice for President, but it is also clear that the climate crisis so dominates every other challenge we face in terms of total impact over the largest number for the greatest period of time that I simply cannot conclude that he is certainly providing better service running for President or continuing to focus all of his efforts on the climate crisis.

Gore is the one. He'd win against any republican, McCain or Romney.

"One hopes he has learned to handle the Dowds and their ilk in the interim."

This was Gore's fatal mistake in 2000.

He thought the press hated the Clintons because they were the Clintons. He figured if he distanced himself from the Clintons and allied himself with Clinton-scold Lieberman they would like him or at least be less hostile to him. Big mistake.

The press dislikes pretty much all Democrats, except maybe Lieberman who isn't really a Democrat. Dowd did to Kerry in 2004 what she had done to Gore; mock his looks and wardrobe. The press is part of the Permanent Govt in DC which tilts heavily republican. Their default mode with Democrats is open contempt and derision.

Would Al Gore be willing to run against Hillary Clinton?

Why not a Gore-Clinton ticket, or a Clinton-Gore ticket?

Post-Iraq and post-Katrina, Americans might be open to a technocrat - environment, health, education, science -- Democrats should frame these as strengths and contrasts to Republican fundamentalism. Let's offer our children something more than war.

"It is alarming to me that Peretz likes Gore."

That is my only hesitation about Al Gore. From what I've read Peretz was an advisor to Gore during the 2000 election. I shudder to think what he advised him. And the idea of Peretz advising a President Gore is worrisome.

That said Gore came out against the Iraq war at a time when Peretz and the New Republican were cheering on this ruinous war.

Neuvo, great post on Kos. And I see Gore is winning your poll bigtime too.
I think he wins every Kos poll I've seen. Cool.

I wouldn't worry too much on that score. Peretz is so far gone on the whole Iraq question, and Gore endorsed Dean early and publicly, that I doubt they talk much business anymore.

Cheer up, danielius, or people are going to start saying you sound like K J Liberal.

I expect I'll be back at the Take Back America Conference in June, signing the petition again.  Maybe I'll bring a false nose and mustache and sign it twice. :-)

aMike

Now this is an interesting comment, and it says something quite important, namely that Al Gore may be the one candidate that can unite the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic Party.

Liberals like Gore because of what happened in the 2000 election, because of global warming and especially because of Gore's vocal opposition to the Iraq War. But moderates and hawks know that Gore's opposition to the Iraq War is something of an anomaly as Gore is actually on the hawkish side of the Democratic political spectrum. During the Clinton Administration, Gore was known as consistently the MOST hawkish member of the National Security Council. He has been a hawk on the terrorism question from long before George W. Bush had even heard of terrorism. And of course he was one of only 10 Democrats to vote for the first Gulf War in 1990. He is no dove.

But none of that matters as long as the Iraq War is front and center in our politics. As long as Gore's strong opposition to that conflict is on people's minds, he'll be palatable to liberals. But hawks will know from his record that he can be trusted. All of which is a strong reason to encourage his candidacy.

I would be energized by a Gore candidacy. But if he is to do it, he should do it on his terms. I am tired of the media-driven talent show the primary nomination contest has become (Need a reminder? Look back at that cacklefest of 2004 Kucinich-Sharpton-Liebermann et al ... or just turn on cable news right now!). I suggest Gore should spend the next year acting like a president (there's certainly a vacuum to fill) by making policy statements at the speeches he is being paid to give. He should also invite any and all foreign leaders to meet with him. If they come -- and I think they would -- he would gain credibility; insolate himself from the criticism some leaders - i.e. Kerry/Carter -have received for venturing into foreign lands to meet them; and get lots of coverage, both worldwide and from the Liberal-hating press i.e Fux News....By waiting to declare he will keep everybody guessing and take the focus off Obama and Hillary (worthy candidates, but ultimately unrealistic in the unenlightened year of 2007). Of course, a team will have to make sure that he is in play in all the primary states, but he can be coy.... i.e. keep the beard....Then, "after conferring with his family" he should throw his hat into the ring around Thanksgiving.

If he had won in 2000, he'd be giving this speech...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/171165

If the Iraq War hadn't happened, the case against the "hawkish tendency in American politics" would be a whole lot weaker.  That "hawkish tendency" saved the entire damned world 62 years ago.

In any case, the comment was about politics, not policy.  Regardless of whether one thinks that hawkish tendency is a good thing or bad thing, it means clearly that doves do not win presidential elections.

Gore, a hawk when necessary, but who would do everything he could to avert the necessity embodies the right combination.
It helps that he was in the service. He does not have to prove anything.

I think you're looking at Gore through rose-colored glasses.  My guess is he'd be a lot more hawkish than you would care for.  And the line about having been in the service makes no sense at all.  McCain, after all, was also in the service.  Veterans include people of all political leanings, from near-pacifists like Jimmy Carter to blindly hawkish types like Donald Rumsfeld.  Veteran status tells you absolutely nothing.  Besides, in the case of Gore, he was a journalist and the son of a Senator when he served in Vietnam.  Not exactly combat.

It's important to look at the totality of someone's record to get a glimpse of how they would act to a perceived threat.  The Iraq War is not the alpha and omega of all discussion on the subject.  That record tells me that McCain would probably be less hawkish than his Iraq War stance would lead you to believe and Gore's would probably be more hawkish.

Finally, there is this issue of not "having to prove something".  I'm not going to make too many friends here by saying this (not that I have any now!) but it's my contention that as long as Democrats have a pacifist wing that is reflexively suspicious of US military power, they will always have "something to prove" to the country at large. 

Eisenhower did, however, send advisors to Vietnam and refused to contemplate talking with Ho Chi Minh in 1955. Kennedy following Eisenhower's mounted the Bay of Pigs and increased the number of advisors in Vietnam. Remember Kennedy, speaking for the vast majority of 1961 Democrats said "we would pay any price bear any burden for liberty."

Clinton said he too would ultimately would have taken out Saddem just not until the inspectors were done in Iraq and until we had secured Afghanistan.

We should not allow Bush's immense incompetence obscure the balance America always strikes as the most powerful military power in history but one that does not like garrison duty as the Romans and the British did and does not like long drawn out wars.

Bush like LBJ may have chosen to fight foolish wars. Their political crime was to promise quick victory and not deliver it.
Daniel A. Greenbaum

I guess my bottom line on hawkishness is this. I will support no wars that I would not be willing to have my sons fight in. (I don't have any daughters).

If a war isn't worth my kids, it's not worth any Americans. It is nauseating to see all the Congressional hawks whose kids do not serve.

Just looked it up. In the last Congress, only 1.1%
had children serving in Iraq or Afganistan. About six.

Jim Webb, our new Dem senator, has a son in Iraq and is a vehement opponent of the Iraq war and of the neocon agenda in general (Iran).

Well-said, King Elvis,
I can pretty much live with any of the current Dems.
And a "smart guy, with a shred of dignity and concern for the little guy" sounds good.

After 8 years of the "public dunce", a public scholar is attractive to me.

aMike
whenever anyone says LITERALLY, you know it ain't

If we do get a Dem Pres in '08, maybe Gore would be good as Secretary of State - maybe something where his vast knowledge and experience can be put to use by a more 'salesman' back slapper type like Edwards or Obama.

Gore-Obama ticket, huh? Interesting...

Although I'm currently watching Edwards, Obama and Gore - I somewhat doubt that Gore will run but who knows - maybe he'll suprise us, huh?

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.

http://water-is-life.blogspot.com

For decades scientists, scholars, and a few brave public servants including one in particular named Al Gore who is thankfully out here as a private citizen working hard to disseminate this truth, have been warning the world what will come as one of the affects from our own negligence, complacency, laziness, indifference, selfishness, and greed.

And only now are more starting to listen, but is it too late? I don't think so. If we start getting serious about it from our own lifestyles to our government across the board, and economic policy now (instead of continuing to use this as a 2008 platform… and I am really so sick of hearing about 2008 already,) hopefully we can reverse this enough to set this planet on the right course now which is or should be the main goal. And that is why it is time for all of us to see the truth that this is happening because of us, and it is now scientific fact. Therefore, it is up to us as responsible and moral stewards of this planet to fix the mess we made...all of us.

In Al Gore's documentary movie, " An Inconvenient Truth", it is said that, "Political will is a renewable resource." Well, I will go one further than that and say, " HUMAN will is a renewable resource." And without it now, we, our children, and their children may be literally sunk. You can make a difference in that ending, even if you think you can't. And that is where the greatest sea change must come from now: HUMAN WILL. And that is why I support Mr. Gore remaining out here as an advocate for people and planet, as opposed to the usual political, “Run Al run” kneejerk reaction put out now by political pundits and political operatives who want their Gore /Clinton grudge match, because I believe that is what will give us the most success on this issue which is paramount.

And in lieu of that opinion, I'm not going to spend anymore time speaking about how much support I would give to Mr. Gore should down the road he decide that running for President is something he wants to do, but ONLY as a free man unencumbered by the corporate/military/industrial complex that does have a hold on both parties in this country, and he also publicly calls for fair elections without electronic voting machines. Sorry, but anything less based on his comments about the toxicity of this system and the state of our Democracy is just not good enough for me or my country now. But does he have to run in this media created system for me to appreciate his work and believe he can make a real difference and that he is a great man? No. If I want enterntainment on the same level as a political campaign I could start watching American Idol. ::::shudder::::

However, I am intrigued by those who continue to think he can do more as a President in this corrupted system that shunned him without calling for change on that level, than he could do out here talking directly to the people and using the tremendous resources and momentum he now has going for him with the ability to influence political policy from outside the beltway. And for all of the times I have asked what they think or know has changed in this system in the last few years that would really make this any different now, I never get an answer.

Do they ever get a sense of just how much this man truly enjoys being face to face with the people? How he is truly enjoying being able to speak unrestrained to them? To be one of them? Well, I get that sense, and I understand it. Why do I understand it, you may ask? Well, you don't have to have been in politics to understand how it feels to be able to freely speak. Being out here looking into that beltway that is a world away is enough, isn't it? Seeing the lack of progress on the issue he has been warning about for thirty years should be enough, shouldn’t it? Because unless you are truly living with your head in the sand it is obvious that candidates in this country are expected to tow a certain line and act a certain way. Any deviation from that violates the unwritten code of political behavior. You are only supposed to give the impression that you give a damn to get votes... you aren't supposed to actually act on it.

This is then where men and women of conscience have their dilemmas if they truly wish to be in public service. How does one do that when it would mean having to compromise your principles and conscience? Well, you do what Al Gore has done. You work out here with the people to motivate and inspire them to make positive changes that will hopefully one day affect what happens at the ballot box. Our system has been bought and paid for for quite some time, and Al Gore was in Washington DC and was a part of it... I suspect he has truly seen it is, and sees just how much he can positively affect peoples' lives out here, and he is doing that.

Therefore, I ask, what is wrong with that? Why are people who claim to support this man so put out with the fact that he may just be happier out here and able to do more than if he were boxed into a Presidency with a Congress unwilling to work with him and an uninformed citizenry, if it truly is the issue of this planetary emergency that they care about? Truly, does he have to be President to affect change on this issue, otherwise it isn’t worth doing? If the answer for you to that question is yes, then one can only wonder on what personal or political level that answer comes from, and where you have been for the last year while he has been doing exactly that.

I would then also suggest that you read the succession of articles posted about his speeches on sustainable investment, climate change, responsible stewardship, and the response he is getting doing this now, which may just stem from the fact that he has up until this point NOT made this a political issue. This is being done because he wants to inform people, especially our up and coming generation, of the power they have to change the way business is done in this country. As one who looks at it from that perspective and sees that positive change affected this way is just as and even more important especially in light of the extent of the damage being done to our planet daily, I believe Al Gore is already living his Presidency and he is doing it as no other President truly has... Freely and with heart and conscience, because that is the only way to approach the issue of our relationship to this planet.

And frankly, I do not believe “politics” alone truly has the heart and morality it will take to truly overcome this crisis as it must be taken on. This is huge and it really does transcend any public office, and the sooner we see that and stop the games the sooner we can be on the road to doing right by Mother Earth who isn’t going to wait for a political convention to respond to the havoc we are wrecking on her. In other words, it’s time to stop using this as a partisan political wedge issue for an election year, and start to do the right thing by our planet and our species now.

No way Al Gore will run. It is because, everyone in the US knows that he is a phony. There are literally hundreds of examples of Gore = phony in 2000 and ever since. Once a reputation is so firmly seated in the public imagination it is impossible to change it.

It would be a Leap of Faith.

But remember Hillary did it in 2000 even though the MSM had firmly set her reputation as "power hungry bitch". She might do  it again in 2008.

Hell, even Nixon did it in 1968.

Al Gore should just make the leap of faith and run for president. What is the worst thing that can happen? Lose? He lost before. Stolen election? Been there. Hostile press? Mock them, run against them.

That was a wisecrack, but since you stirred me up...

Why don't we ask him what he meant? My impression is that marcf is an inamorato of Hillary. I think he will likely attack any candidate who might interrupt her march to a mediocre, cowardly, poll-driven, civil-liberties-challenged presidency.

In a brief debate, he called me dishonest three times for having the effrontery to link her sponsorship of flag-burning legislation to the sponsors of a flag-burning amendment.

How about it, marcf? Is Al Gore a phony, or has he simply been painted as one by the right-wing press?

I will speak slowly and repeat in order that you may understand it this time:

Al - Gore - has - already - won - a - presidential - campaign - winning - both - the - popular - and - electoral - vote.

The - American - public - has - already - expressed - its - willingness - to - have - Al - Gore - lead - the - country.

Let me know if you need this explained again. If you wish, I'll hire a ASL signer.

Isn't he still married to Tipper?  Wasn't she against free speech before the Republicans knew there was free speech?

i'm not excited by the choices so far, and excitement is what it is all about. in my planarian cortex view electing a president is the same as selecting a new carpet, or an entree at a restaurant or a new, gas hogging SUV. so if a candidate other than Adolph Hitler does not give me the intangible rush of "excitement" that i crave and desire, I will vote for Adolph Hitler and sentence my children and grandchildren and my country to a fascist oblivion. Because it's my choice and they didn't "excite" me enough. Bottom line, i really don't care about my childrens' future or their childrens'. All I really care about is my "excitement" quotient.

Re; EXCITEMENT!
Very few were excited by FDR in 1932. The excitement started with the inauguration.

JMoore--
I apologize for my viciously anti-Gore piece.

Just how much of a patriot is Al Gore? America needs him. Now more than ever before.

Gore is not going to run. Bottom line. Bet money on it.

And I think it's a little unfair to cast him as unpatriotic, or at least imply that his patriotism rests on whether or not he wants to, for example, subject himself and his family to another campaign.

There's also a question of whether he can do more good for the country (world) as President or not. When I saw him speak las year, he sounded pretty much convinced he could do more good as a citizen, versus a politician.

I thought then, and still do, that whether or not he would run would rest on the outcome of the 06 Congressional elections. And while Dems picked up majorities, they are close margins, certainly in the Senate. Any proposals Gore may have are going to get mired in Congressional politics, and may not even pass. Or, at the least, get watered down.

I believe he's going to come to the conclusion that he can do more as a private citizen to help the cause for which he's found his true calling -- climate change.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

No one on the planet can do more good or ill for this planet than the President. Just look at the changes wrought by George W. Bush.

"Is Al Gore a phony, or has he simply been painted as one by the right-wing press?"

Neither. Al Gore is perhaps the most capable politically active person in the US today. I am not aware that he has a single phony bone in his body.

The right wing press will smear any Democratic candidate. What hurt Gore in 1999-2000 was the constant and almost unamimous mockery of the main-stream press and television. I gave two examples from the NYT, by writers universally respected by liberals. That mockery continues today.

George Bush had his party, the Congress majority, firmly behind him. Gore would not. The mockery of Al Gore in the MSM we see today would continue were he elected, and that would seriously dilute his power.

Thank you for a straight answer.

I think Al Gore is so much of a patriot that he will NOT run for president if he thinks it would hurt the country. And it WOULD hurt the country because he would be the weakest Democratic candidate.

He still has the reputation of being a phony. I see no way he can shake that reputation now. Everything he says, even his Christmas cards, will be examined to show what a phony he is. The script is written and it is too late to change it.

Al Gore's reputation as a phony was written by the MSM, press and television. I gave two examples above (I could have chosen 100 others equally egregious). They are NYT columns written by two liberal heroes. You haven't heard of Gail Collins (www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1620) or Frank Rich (www.slate.com/id/2131911/) ??

Gore would have won the 2000 election easily if not for them. These "liberals" and their colleagues continue to mock Gore with heavy sarcasm. They would continue to do so if he got elected in 2008.

It would continue were he elected, true-- that would happen with any Dem regardless-- but I don't think it would be a huge factor in the actual campaign. The old insults are tired and stale, and the comeback narrative is almost irresistable to the press, plus they'd have the added bonus of using Gore to poke at Bush's failures in a passive-aggressive way.

The Washington Post thinks otherwise: www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12623-2001Nov11

But I personally have no opinion on this historical footnote. The reality is that Al Gore should have been expected to win by a landslide, but he did not. The election was a virtual tie, and had to be decided by extra-constitutional means.

The problem so many of you mention -- that the media will savage Gore making it impossible for him to win -- is real.
But what's unique about that?
Look at the race-baiting CNN and Fox are already employing against Obama.
Hillary starts with half the electorate against her and a rightwing media that has savaged her since 1992.
John Edwards is a trial lawyer (i.e. he fights for the little guy) which will be portrayed as criminal practice.
These are the people who succeeded in making John Kerry look like a draft-dodger and in ending Dan Rather's career because CBS News reported the facts about W's military service.
If Jesus Christ was running as a Dem, Fox and the rest would savage him as a Commie Jew. Maureen Dowd would mock his (obviously fake) humility. The neocons would say that his "dovish" policies would lead to a "sellout of Israel." Tom Friedman would say that he "doesn't get" globalization and the new interconncted economy. And Ann Coulter would say that he's "obviously gay."
So we can dispense with the fear of what the right will say. They will have plenty of ammunition on all our candidates because THEY MAKE IT UP.
Let's just run the best one. Jesus is, sad to say, unavailable.

The WaPo actually agrees with me. This is from the article you cite:

...if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.

I think you'd have to agree that it's kind of, shall we say, dishonest? to cite an article that says the opposite of what you claim.

As I have said, what? six times now?, Gore won. Popular vote and electoral vote.

Virtual tie? That would be Kennedy/Nixon. Gore won. Period.

What you're saying now is different than blaming his loss on "liberal" journalists like Frank Rich.

I don't dispute that the "news media" had something to do with his loss. But that's not liberal op/ed writers -- it's a very different dynamic.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

When Rumsfeld blames Americans' views of Iraq on the Media that is ridiculous but it is the Media's fault when Democrats lose?

Gore ran a miserable campaign. He wa the sitting Vice President of an administration that had peace and properity. He effectively turned his back on Clinton and sought to run a "us" versus "them" campaign. He won anyway but he should have won going away.

Gore and Lieberman also did not show a lot of nerve in fighting for the election in Florida. That might not matter now but it may be remembered by many Democratic operatives.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

How soon we forget...

The "recession" of 2001 had already begun in the summer of 2000.  It was the dark cloud hanging over the election. Bush should have won in a landslide. That he didn't suggests that the whole country was skeptical from the very beginning.

I personally don't like Gore.  I didn't like him in 2000.  I didn't like him in 1994.  But, to think he should have won in a landslide is just plain make believe.

As to the "phony" charge, I am curious which of the way too many politicians I have ever met is NOT susceptible to that charge?  None I can think of.  Phony Xmas cards.  Every one.  Phony focus group opinions.  Every one.  Damn the lot of 'em.  I favor random selection DRAFT of the legislature with two cycles (half new, half old) and NO return.  EVERYONE should be not only eligible, but mandated to be available, just like juries.   

"the Media's fault when Democrats lose?"

I know it sounds crazy, but in this case YES. Please do just read that one Daily Howler about the Bush/Gore first debate www.dailyhowler.com/dh092804.shtml and tell me what you think.

Marcf,
Thanks for the cite. I just read it. Wow. I had forgotten how bad the media was in 2000. The NY Times, no less. And Jim Lehrer.
Really depressing. I wonder if anything has changed for the better.

"Really depressing"

Right now I would be happy with any Democratic candidate. I feel strongly that discussion of the candidates, at least here at tpmcafe, should be fact-based not snark-based. These days the snark is mostly directed against Hillary Clinton, so I end up defending her.

There is no doubt that the Media was harder on Gore than Bush. There was a tendency to examin how authentic Gore was and to ignore Bush's equivalent inner workings. However, Gore allowed it. He could have fought back. Also, the Press likes stories and it can go both ways. To assume the Media is against you and the reason for losing is a dangerous presumption.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I think that Gore 2.0 could win for five reasons.

1. He did it before. Do you think that anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 would vote Republican?

2. The "What could have been" factor - I think that Bush's unpopularity will be a big boost to any democratic candidate. Gore would benifit even more so from this, for obvious reasons.

3. A better VP. I don't see how Lieberman did too much for Gore in 2000. Imagine if he had someone as charasmaic as Edwards or Obama, strong on national security on Westley Clark or tied in to fund raising as Clinton.

4. He's a different man. The Al Gore that I've seen givinig speeches critical of the Bush administration, and in An Inconveniant Truth is not the same candidate that only won by a razor thin margin.

5. Iraq. So far all the major Republican hopefuls are tied to Iraq. Edwards framing of escallation as the McCain Docterine shows how useful that can be.

But if I vote for him in the primary it won't be because I think he could win. Its because I want him to win.

Thanks for calling attention to that book.

"Why not Gore?" One author of that book, Paul Waldman, addresses that very question for the 2004 election http://info.prospect.org/print/V13/24/waldman-p.html

His answer is exactly the same as I am trying to give here!

Oh, and his column is largely sourced to Somerby www.dailyhowler.com/dh122302.shtml

We always tend to avoid the "sane" ones (I'm thinking Rwanda and Darfur here). I'm hoping that Iraq kills the idea of "transformative" or ideological war for the rest of history.

Is there anyone in the Democratic field right now that wouldn't face an uphill battle in the media?

Of course -- Obama. He's a rock star, and they love him.

And I don't think bias is the right word. It's more about laziness, relying on narratives and shortcuts rather than exploring the whole story. "Gore invented the Internet" and therefore "Gore exaggerates" was much easier that actually digging into the story to see what he really did. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I've been lurking around here for the last couple of weeks, trying to decide whether to post something about a possible Gore-Obama ticket, which has been on my mind for a while now. It's encouraging that others are thinking along the same lines...

It's easy to see why Gore says he won't run, after the heart-wrenching outcome in 2000, but is he really thinking of how a large portion of the country now realizes just how bad that 2000 result has been for all of us. It's a new day - the country knows that Bush has been a disaster - he might find references to his "loss" in 2000 would significantly bolster his case, rather than detract from it. He could play it as a we-shouldn't-make-the-same-mistake-again kinda thing.

I hope he'll change his mind.

I am for Al Gore. He will win while the others I am afraid will lose.