You're not alone. He could be the strongest candidate the Democrats have.

No retreads. Gore's right to the presidency and his critique, as compelling as that all may be=bitter. And so—as unfair as it may be—sacks his credibility.

However, whenever Obama
opens his mouth he comes across as a legitimate moral arbiter on Bush. It's weird, but it's exactly what the Democrats need.

It's too late for Gore in 2008. But if only the Gore of 2006 had run in 2000...

When was the last time a party fielded a Presidential candidate who previously lost a Presidential election?

(We all know that Gore actually won the election, but you know what I mean.)

Nixon lost to JFK in 1960 and won in 1968.

I just realized, to answer my own question, I think it was Nixon.

Dan, if you want Gore to run now, just wait until you see "An Inconvenient Truth."

It's not just the subject matter that is powerful. The little personal segments with Gore are often quite moving. Sitting there watching it, I couldn't imagine Bush having anywhere near that sort of inner life.

I came away from the movie sad... somewhat like the TV show West Wing often made me feel... mourning the fact that our nation seems incapable of electing truly great men to our highest offices.

The last time the Democrats did it was in 1956.
Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in '52 and then again in '56.

A nerdy, stiff intellectual. Hmmmmm... He was dubbed an "egghead" by Ike's running mate (Nixon) & it worked.

Stevenson lost in 1952 in a blowout - 55% to 44%. Hardly the dead heat 2000 was. And when Stevenson ran again, Ike was a popular incumbent. Sure, Gore is known as a stiff nerd, too, but the situation today isn't so much like the 1950s to say he's destined to become another Adlai Stevenson.

One of Gore's plans for if he was in office back during the campaign in '99 was weaning Americans from the combustion engine and our dependence on the mid-east for fuel.

Nearly 10 years before the $4 gallon of gas.

No need to even speculate on how much better he would've addressed 9-11/Bin Laden, Iraq, Katrina, immigration, State's rights (particularly with regard to the recognition of marriage) and so on and so on.

Running up losing candidates again used to be common, back when the presidential election was a contest between parties and not a beauty contest between individuals. Not necessarily better or worse, but once common, now rare. Now, you lose, you're supposed to fade away.

I would vote for Gore in a heartbeat. The man has a vision, and I gladly support it. He's not saddled with the baggage he was in 2000 (namely, the Clinton scandals, now regarded almost nostalgically); his time in the "wilderness" hopefully highlights the fact that he is not a part of the Beltway, and thus not a party to the rampant partisanship and corruption DC is struggling with. He certainly isn't going to polarize voters like Hillary Clinton, and I don't think that he would sell out as readily as she would.

The man exist almost as an ideal right now: the man who had the presidency stolen from him by an imbecile who allowed vast destruction to be visited on the country. Gore is a chance to turn back the clock, and the typical smears the GOP uses against him will be of little effect, because they've done far worse in his absence.

Nicely said, Matt.

I think Gore will be the nominee. He will be the Franklin Roosevelt of our time.

having all but lost faith in Hillary - Gore is looking good, indeed.

Southern Democrat still rides with him - and talk of nostalgia, what if Gore had not been screwed out of the White House, hauts all of us.

He need to choose the right mate - a woman - I still can't fathom the Lieberman choice instead of a woman. Boxer?

Obama, even better. Grooming for the next cycle.

Hillary is making no sense. She is truly a cynic...... as those who know her have told us all these years.

http://draftgore.com

You may not be alone but I am NOT with you on that. I've explained this time and again: he is bland, he is weak, he lacks charisma and conviction, and his wife is a fucking thought-police fascist who would use her husband's position to censor the fuck out of everything she could. All the Republicans would have to do is run someone more engaging than a comatose vegetable and they'd probably snap up the swiong voters and hold serve in '08 without a fight.

Al Gore = bad, bad idea. Sorry.

If Hillary Clinton ran, I'd probably vote Republican.

Al Gore is a better choice than Clinton, for sure. But with Obama on the up and up, he might be the sexy pick in '08.

If your goal for Gore 2008 is to correct an error in history, then it would be better to re-elect Jimmy Carter.

It may be early in his career to consider running, but I REALLY like what Barack Obama is about, how straightforward he is in getting to the heart of the issues, and he'd have my vote if he ran in '08.

Gore/Obama sure sounds sexy, but I bet Gore would go back to being just as stiff and unlikable the instant things got serious. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

William Jennings Bryan ran for president as a Democrat three times, the first year being 1896 when he ran to save farmers from what he called "a cross of silver," which referred to the silver standard, part of what backed up the dollar at that time. He never won election but ended up Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson.
Al Gore is a brilliant guy but these days are different. People look at candidates like they do the people on "American Idol." Having run for president twice - 1988 and 2000 - Al Gore would have a hard time with questions such as "you have lost twice and now what makes you think you can win?" It's dumb but there it is.
The Democratic party should look to new people, such as the forward thinking populist Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer. He was featured in a segment of "60 Minutes" about two months back; and you can look at his web site, www.brianschweitzer.com to see that he has some interesting and thought-provoking ideas.
The people of this country desperately want new leadership and are more than willing to accept some new names. This is something Senator John McCain might find out also - if he can get anyone in the Republican party's core of true believers to give him the nomination.
2008 should be an interesting year - if the country survives until then.

Correction to last post: William Jennings Bryan's speech was against the gold standard and was featured the phrase "No man should hang upon a cross of gold." He believed that silver should be "free" and that the silver coinage - which at that time included a silver dollar in wide circulation - should not be tied to the gold in Fort Knox (or wherever they kept it, at that time).

I'm afraid Gore is the only person who can stop Hillary.

I've walked out on two Gore speeches because he's such a terrible speaker. But I like him anyway. He'd be a good president. Probably as good as anybody in the last 50 years.

To me, Tipper, her uber-censorship stance (she was championing bans on videogames, goth music and trenchcoats, yes, BANNING TRENCHCOATS IN SCHOOLS, after Columbine), and the key Democrats she'd have on puppet strings (like Joe Lieberman was), should her husband assume office, is my key dealbreaker. I'd almost tolerate the hollow substance of Mr. Gore otherwise.

Gore BEAT Bush by half a million votes nationwide in 2000, and the final recount in Florida showed that he even narrowly won that state, despite the voting irrgularities, the meddling by his brother the governor and his campaign committee member the security of state.

Gore abided by the Supreme Court decision and couldn't have imagined what a total piece of shit Bush would be as president. Worse, the spineless Democrats in the Senate failed to support a legit complaint against the court decision.

Yes, he beat him by half a million votes, but doesn't the narrowness of that margin strike you as kind of unbelievable, given the bounty he was inheriting from Clinton? He had all the good stuff -- the boom, the good feeling, the peace -- with none of the personal baggage. A reader above says he's walked out on TWO Gore speeches -- people, that's not an electable dude. Given how 2000 was set up for him, I just can't understand an explanation for his loss other than pure unelectability. I recall The Simpsons in which Homer is replaced at his work station by a brick swinging on a rope, holding a lever in place. If ever a gently swinging brick could have been elected president, 2000 would have been that year. In fact, turns out it WAS that year.

Obama is pretty cool, but we won't see someone so untested as the Dem standard-bearer. He's a kid, he has yet to face a serious challenger (Ryan and Keyes?), and he's a Senator. That last bit really means nothing, but the historical trend has been towards electing executives over legislators, and if McCain comes out in front, Dems would be smart to get a governor or former vice president.

The argument that Gore shouldn't run because he lost neglects to mention the niggling little fact that he won. He didn't fail like Nixon, like Bryan, or like Carter. He won, and only election fraud and a contentious Supreme Court ruling kept him from assuming office (that, and Ralph Nader, dum dum dum!). That's all. We liked his ideas. We voted for them, and the idea that no one who voted for him in 2000 won't do so again is laughable. All he has to do is come up with a plan for Iraq (and let's face it, almost any plan at all will do), and he has the best shot to win. Hands down.

Gore should have had the 2000 election handily won. Bush was clearly an ignorant, batshit crazy rightwinger and even Republicans shook their heads at how foolish he was. Yet Gore did his part to give the election away with his own blandness, aristocratic complacency, lack of personality, conviction or inspiration, and having the Censorship Queen as his wife certainly didn't help.

It won't work. The Democrats need to run a better candidate. Whoever the Republicans run will easily win if Gore's on the ticket in 2008.

I would remind you that Gore was most likely hurt by an unfavorable media. There were more the 2x as many negative reports about Gore then Bush, and I would challenge anyone to name something bad about Gore beyond being "boring." Gore would have handily taken the election in 2000 if the media hadn't been so busy having a field day sliming him.

Yeah, victim of the media, and so was Bob Dole, and HW in '92 and Dukakis in '88 and so on.

That's sour grapes and revisionist history. There's plenty of footage of Dubya making an ass of himself during the '00 campaign.

Clinton saw a firestorm of negative media all throughout his candidacy and presidency and he still won both his elections easily.