Ultimately, I would vote for anybody who won the presidential democratic nomination, but I'm not sure if Gore is the right guy unless he were to become as bold and fearless a speaker on the campaign trail as he has been in private/public life. But if he were to win the nomination and campaign with stiff awkward demeanor he showed in 2000, we're doomed again.

Gore-Clark in 2008. Or else Gore-Feingold with Clark named in advance as the new secretary of defense.

Hillary Clinton has no chance and needs to stay in congress so her seat isn't given to a Republican by the governor of New York state,

I do think Gore has advantages and will be a much better, more fired-up candidate two years from now. So, holy shit, I'd never thought I'd say this, but GORE '08.

The man's blandness, aristocracy, complacency, marriage to a fascist bitch, and a variety of other flaws opened the door for a batshit crazy Dubya to steal the 2000 election.

No. If you're gonna keep shoving this idea down Slog reader's throats, I'm gonna keep saying it. No no no no no no.

I didn't see it until the SNL bit, but it's crystal clear to me now. It will be Gore in 2008, and he will win. The fact that he lost in 2000 will only help his cause, because America loves a comeback.

Exactly. That's why Mondale got smeared in the 1984 election... oh wait.

As for Hillary, well, we now have a disatrous president who was elected simply because his father was president. No way we're replacing him with someone whose sole qualification is that her husband once held the job.

Tipper is not a fascist bitch.

"That's why Mondale got smeared in 1984... oh wait"

Um, thanks for that observation, except that 1984 was the first and *only* time Mondale ran for president, so it's not really relevant to the point about comebacks.

Think of Bill Clinton winning back the governorship of Arkansas after losing the 1980 election. Or Richard Nixon winning in 1968 after just barely losing to Kennedy in 1960.

No matter, Gomez, I'm sure you'll comeback a winner in your comment. We're all rooting for you!

Oh my god - Gore-Feingold 2008.

I just made a milkshake in my shorts.

I think Feingold would be a much better senate majority leader than a (vice) presidential candidate: No matter what people say, there's still plenty of anti-semitism in the country.

If Gore is annointed, he better get some campaign managers who will wage a smart yet aggressive campaign. No Shrums or Cahill who will muzzle him in the face of Republican smears. Quick responses and constant attacks highlighting 8 years of republican incompetence, mismanagement and Bush enabling.

I'm with Dan on this. I've already got too much anxiety brewing over the mid term elections. My head is going to explode if I start trying to think too hard about the 2008 presidential race this early. I want to cry every time I think we're stuck with Bush as president for 981 more days (not that I'm counting or anything).

Having said that, I saw a video of Gore giving a VERY rousing speech a couple of months ago. And he was funny as hell on SNL. Maybe when he sequestered himself after the 2000 disaster, he grew a personality or something. He had more charisma in his 5 minute SNL skit than he displayed in his entire 2000 campaign combined. If he could maintain that kind of charisma for even a part of a new campaign, he might have a chance. (And yes, Tipper needs to shut the fuck up about her varying censorship issues).

Just a note about Ned Lamont and his primary fight with Joe Lieberman, a race which should give a great indication of how the winds are blowing for the mideterms. Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films releaased their short film for Ned Lamont last night. You can view it at nedlamont.com.

My mistake: I swore that Mondale run in 1980 after Carter decided not to bother. It just SEEMED like Carter didn't bother. Nevermind that point then.

However, Gore can give all the rousing speeches he wants. Do the swing voters throughout the nation, who BTW actually decide elections, buy into his rhetoric? You can buy into it all you want, but most Americans aren't nearly as gullible, partial or easily swayed.

Gomez, a lot of americans are very gullible.

How do you explain Bush getting 50 million votes while falling for his faux hick folksy talk. Or 40 plus percent believing that unwarranted wiretapping is ok with them.

For the presidential election, the question may be that if McCain gets the republican nomination, will they fall for his independent "maverick" persona when in reality he is a hard right conservative.

This Gore video makes me want to cry.

Most voters don't care how hard McCain's rightwingering is, Peter. They're gonna make a surface-level judgment call, and if McCain connects to voters better than Gore does, then the election's as good as his.

Gore is bland, lacking in direction, married to a fascist, said he invented the internet, and has a poor history in most Americans' minds in jobbing a 2000 election he could've easily won to an openly crazy right-wing nut.

Maverick vs Personality-lacking Yuppie? It wouldn't be a contest.

God, I wish people could get behind progressive, strong candidates instead of hoovering the cocks of failed etreads.

Why the fuck won't people stop saying that Gore claimed to invent the internet, when that statment has been proved to be false! All he did is claim credit for legislation, that funded the military project, that leaded to the creation of our modern internet, which is the truth. This pisses me off to no end. Ok done with bitching, I think Gore is the best 2008 candidate we have and encourage people to add their names to the petions at draftgore2008.org

Petitions too...

I think Gore is the best 2008 candidate we have and encourage people to add their names to the petions at draftgore2008.org

... because.... ?

He won in 2000, he cares about the environment, he has the experience to lead, he has championed issues I care about, he is "boring" and by that I mean there are no "scandals" he can be implicated in to stop him from effectively governing, do I need to give more reasons?

Gomez,
I guess what I should be asking you is why, besides "losing" in 2000, Gore would not make a good president?

You and Dan are the ones trying to sell him, Silvertail. Burden of proof's on you.

1) It doesn't come down to Florida if Gore carried the states that Clinton did. Clinton didn't need swing states because he carried much of the South and Midwest. Funny how Democrats now try to pretend those states don't exist or matter. That he lost those states shows how unconvincing of a candidate he was.
2) Any candidate worth his/her salt cares about the environment. To use that as a defense is as ridiculous as saying a candidate is worth my vote because he eats his greens. In fact, one could argue that just about any Democrat that runs will make the environment an issue.
3) Neat. What issues?
4) He is "boring" and by that I mean voters who aren't deeply into politics don't buy into him.
5) Anyone can be implicated in a scandal. There was just no need to implicate Gore because he did himself in with his own lack of fervor and legitimacy.
6) Yes, you need more reasons. Try giving good, solid ones.

I love the Al Gore invented the internet line of attack. Very similar to the Kerry is a "flip-flopper" strategy. These catch phrases gave conservatives/moderates a way to justify voting against the Democratic candidates, without actually exploring the veracity of the claims, or in Kerry's case, the reasons supporting Kerry's decision to change his policy.

My favorite thing about the Al Gore internet attack is that the claim has no real relationship to his ability to preside over the country, but to this day, people still remember and drop this line in arguments over his viability as a candidate.

I can only tip my hat to the Republican Machine for employing such a juvenile strategy so successfully. Well played.

It's about as juvenile as saying your candidate is the best because he's not as evil as his opponent, and using that as your main campaign issue.

Gore would be great in 2008!!!

He's fired up--like most of us...

He would do something about the environment besides pretending science is bogus...

He would start turning this jaw-dropping, eye-popping deficit around...

He'd bring some credibility back to the USA--'cause he already has positive name recognition internationally (and many Europeans loved and love Bill Clinton so that only helps)...

He wants to work on healthcare and raising the minimum wage...

He has experience! He's rested!

GORE WOULD BE GREAT IN 2008!!!

If Al Gore can come to voters with a convincing plan to do everything you mentioned... and also divorced Tipper... then I'd be right behind him in 2008.

The past 2 presidential elections were indeed juvenile. Bush won those battles using classic schoolyard bully tactics.

This next election will be just as juvenile, except that 8 years later, the country has now seen what a dick Bush is, and they're ready to see him and his party get the beating they deserve. Who better to deliver that beating than Bush's most notable victim, Gore?

It's just too good of a story for voters to pass up.

P.S. John McCain == Bob Dole.