Hmmm...since Hillary doesn't have a chance, which appears to be the only thing that most Democrats seem to agree about at this point in time, Al may be the most competitive. We also know that Warner is an unknown quantity. Again, hmm...

For former Vice President Al Gore, a rash of favorable publicity surrounding this month's opening of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," and the growing political resonance of its subject -- global warming -- are stoking the most serious speculation about a Gore political comeback since his loss in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/ar...08111709990005

BTW: I say more about this on my own blog. (I know...shameless plug.)

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Please let some one new come out of the woodwork. Right now, the only person I'm aware of in the political limelight that I would want for President is McCain. Maybe Biden.

Biden wasn't consdered for running mate status with Kerry because he was bugging Kerry to get McCain to join the ticket with him.

A McCain/Biden ticket would be nice. Never happen, but it would be nice.

I think that because of Iran (and Iraq) Americans are going to want a more low key, level headed leader. McCain's maverick style may turn into a liabilty as Americans look for a president who will not drag us into another war.

In other words, for the post-Bush era, boring will be in!!! Even folks in the red states will turn in their stone washed jeans and mullets for khakis and docksides.

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Isn't Al Gore part of the problem with the Democratic party that you referenced in the other thread?

Not if he can win.

Remember, that's the focus -- who can win, at the top of the ticket. The elitism, of which I spoke, is more about pushing uber-liberal beliefs and values that run counter to what moderates are willing to put up with. Por ejemplo, if Gore finds that most folks don't want to drive hybrids by 2030, he should not force feed it down their throats, or insist that it be a major part of the platform. This may not make Greenpeace or the Sierra Club real happy, but who cares. (Of course, this is all hypothetical.)

And, if Greenpeace and the Sierra Club see that Gore is the major contender for the opposition, they should shut their pie holes and push for him to win, in a way that they can, legally. They'd should do this because they'd do better with a Gore presidency than with a McCain presidency, right?

So, if folks don't want to be on the Expressway driving pocket-sized hybrids by 2030, what, as environmentally conscious folks, should we do? Well, we advocate for a more broad policy aimed at incrementally reducing dependency on foreign oil, repairing failing mass transit and rail systems, investing serious dollars into technology for renewable sources of energy, creating more incentives via tax credits for those who do purchase hybrids, and push for a multi-billon dollar US Dept. of Energy Challenge Grant in order to research the most efficient and effective ways to ensure the use of ethanonl in various capacities; that would be more appropriate and pragmatic. If we got some of that, we would be much better off 10 years from now, than we are presently. (Oh, I forgot to add the multi-millon dollar social marketing campaign aimed at pushing hybrids and mass transit in our most densely populated urban centers.)

It shouldn't be all Birkenstocks, all the time, or I'm walkin' right outta here!

Does that make sense?

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

There's some similarities between Gore's wishful thinking and what happened with Richard Milhouse Nixon.

Ok, both failed at running--they lost in the end.

Both men were Senators.

Both men were Vice Presidents for popular presidents.


Well, that's it. Here's where Gore and Nixon aren't the same:

Nixon had a visible career as a Senator. Not Gore. At least Gore plumped an image while he was VEEP.

Nixon, following a growing line of Republicans, had an exemplary record of foreign policy making during his first term. Thanks to him, China is now able to buy almost all of our foreign debt--and keep that condo market booming.

Nixon placated and eventually ended the Vietnam war/conflict. Democrats suffered greatly for the war escalating during a Dem presidency only to get massively bad during another one (LBJ's). It went so bad that neither party wanted to defend the war anymore (unlike Iraq).

Nixon's end of term popularity was so high, that an electoral map of the United States was entirely covered in red! That's a scary thought, isn't it. New York and Pennsylvania red states? Whoa! [funny how the map shows it as blue, but that's just an artistic choice] The 1972 election was probably one of the most weirdest ones ever. What a landslide that was, and for some interesting reasons. Very unlikely Gore would get such a boost that Nixon ever got. Had Nixon not been such a slimebag in the White House he would have gone down as a great president; he did do some tremendous dealmaking and signed numerous liberally-supported bills into law that we take for granted now. Now all we have to remember him by is that hotel complex in DC, which I hear is going condo?

Sadly, Gore coming up to try again at this guy is just simply a bad idea. A lot of mad people who are anti-Bush are going to slow down and not drive as fast to the polling place in 2008, if they go at all.

We don't need more voter apathy, we need more agitated, angry voters. A populist movement will drive the dominant party out of power. It always has. Stick to the formula.

You need someone fresh to face the Bush dynasty and the offspring they choose to replace Duhbya, don't rehash last season dahling.

__________________
Buh-bye.

As always, EC, you bring much logic to this debate. However, McCain is a giant...he's a friggin heavy weight! The fresh faced thing worked against Bush 1 because he was so vanilla. I don't think it would work against some one like McCain; he has such high poll numbers, as well as name recognition.

I think we go brand-to-brand on this one.

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

McCain's got pundit-appeal, for sure.

He comes off better than Ross Perot (who did managed to get millions of votes). But... if I see that lawn gnome on TV again holding up another pie chart that'll be the day I burn my voter registration card.

__________________
Buh-bye.

Gore is already there, pushing uber-liberal beliefs that run counter to what moderates (meaning all "middle of the road" voters, not just Democrats) are willing to put up with. IMO, he can't win with the environmental extremism, and he can't back off now because he's already in too deep.

Well, he did win the popular vote in 2000, and he was an environmental-techie wonk back then.

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud