I think that Al Gore owes it to America and the world to run in '08. He is an honest man of integrity and was short-changed by a facist adminstration that would have done anything to win.

No-one would stand a chance against him even Hilary.

Go Gore Go!

why are people engaging these republican zealots who are clearly posting on this site because they're scared of Gore?

8 years later or not, the GOP has every reason to fear Gore, he did beat Bush in 2000 after all. more votes than any candidate ever and our country has been without a president since.

the pendulum will swing. volunteer. get out the vote. more people voting DOES NOT SERVE GOP interests, it helps the people of the country and will elect leaders who respond to the people.

the most important thing we do will be to expose the Republican lies and disinformation machine

ironically the people who stand to gain the least are often the most rabid Republican voters. (gotta hand it to the GOP for being so effective at fooling people)

I just can't see Al Gore making it for we Democrats. I supported John Kerry in the last election and could possibly do so again. I am looking for a candidate who will represent we, the American taxpayers and voters in doing something realistic about the millions of Illegal Aliens who have invaded our country. This will take somebody with the courage of their convictions and nobody is showing this to me. If you lived among them, with their demands in your face, you might do something about them.

Who is out there who will represent the American voters, the legal and law-abiding citizens?

"Gore could not even carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000 vs. Bush"

Have you ever BEEN to Tennessee??? I was born there, and in 2000 turned my back on those people after they betrayed the man they once called "Favorite Son". Al Gore served the people of TN honorably, fighting corrupt corporations and legislators who would destory our air, and water for a larger profit margin (I shudder to think how much lower TN would be on the air quality scale if not for Al), working to expand state health benefits for the elderly, and children...the list goes on, and on. Al didn't carry TN because the state that ranked in the bottom 10 in education back in 2000 was more impressed by a homespun moron selling Jesus, and tax cuts they would never benefit from. End of story. I can assure you that an ever increasing number of Bush voters in TN now wish they could go back in time.

Gore's own inferior educational credentials ought to be an issue.

I am of the firm belief that Al Gore must- not should, but must- run for president in 2008. He is the only true environmentalist in the field of possible candidates. While Hurricane Katrina and odd weather is beginning to show us the effects of global warming, these are nothing compared to what will occur if we don't change our course on the environment. This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. It affects every single one of us. Al Gore understands that. Therefore, he must understand that it is his responsibility to run.
Simply beyond that, Gore is a credible candidate who can win as long as he learned from the pitfalls he took in 2000. If he has less advisors and more personailty, his intelligence and humor (yeah, I said it. Did you see him on SNL?), he can overcome his biggest weakness: a boring public persona.

My President, Gore, is 6 times the man the sock puppet is. But Kerry was more like 18 times the man. McCain might be 20X. But Character will not count, nor issues. Money will be spent like it was going out of style (we could wish). Image will win. Nothing else could explain the donut hole in chief ever gaining public office. The key would be having Ralph Nader as VP on a ticket to pull in the few % that he carried. No one has ever doubted Nader's passion or integrity. Let the others that can say that raise their hands. A good third or fourth party is what we need to shake up the republicrats.

Fellow Dems

If Hillary is nominated in 08 we will
lose again .
We need someone like Wes Clark or AL
thats write AL GORE to retake the
White House. Someone who has done what
Bush could not, serve .Its time to put
up or shut up for us Democrats.
For the sake of America let get a Dem.
elected in o8.

Al Gore will win in 2008 by significant number of electoral votes, Hillary loses in the Primary so do others, Only Al Gore will make it to the White House, 85% Mark warner would be Al Gore's VP.

http://www.electgore2008.com

Al Gore runs in 2008 and wins in 2008. End of the discussion

Can we get real here?...a candidate runs on name and the excitability factor, not how they voted on some vague bill everyone has forgotten about. Al Gore and Clinton are candidates people get excited about.

The Republicans on this list should be worried about who they are going to run not who Dems are going to run. Look at the list so far....Bill Frist, George Pataki, George Allen, Mitt Romney....it puts you to sleep. They might have a chance against the Dems with Guiliani or McCain but one wonders whether the conservative wing will back them.

Go dems go!

I just have a quick question about this self purported republican slogan that they are strong on Defense and war and democrats are not...how do you figure?!?! Lets just take a quick review of the record...almost every MAJOR war (you know, the ones that have actual monuments on the National Mall) over the last 100 years has had a DEMOCRAT as commander-in-chief. WWI-Wilson, WWII-FDR and then Truman, Korea-Eisenhower but initiated under Truman, Vietnam-initiated by Kennedy, ran by LBJ and then (nothing to brag about) Nixon. I will give credit where credit is due though...Republicans have Grenada, Panama, and four glorious days during Desert Storm. For almost 50 years now the closet thing to having a real war and a republican president at the same time is right now. And if Iraq is exemplarily of republican military know how I'd like to sell you some property in Fallujah. Where the hell do the republicans get off?!? Is Reagan bankrupting the economy in an arms race the "claim to fame"?!?! And the icing on all this is, as a John Wayne type republican would say, the only one who had the balls to do the ultimate act of destruction and drop "the Bomb" was Truman. As a democrat that's something that I hate my party being associated with, and I also think it was wrong, but Jesus Christ in a chicken basket who's the tough guy now punk? But hey, republicans have added some recent tough guy contributions…illegal torture and flesh pyramids and they got the fricken pictures to prove it.

Yes, since 1964, the only Democrats elected president have been from the South. But Al Gore is as Southern as Norm Coleman is Minnesotan. He grew up in Northwest DC, not Tennessee. Maybe that's why he couldn't even carry his own state in 2000. If he had, he'd have been inaugurated in 2001.

Jimmy Carter is wiser, can carry his own state, has probably the strongest "morals and values" profile of any national Dem, and as an instant lame duck would be immune from the pandering charges that plague Clinton and Gore.

aj,
anyone who honestly thinks that al gore as president in 2000 would've led to 30,000 deaths from 9/11 instead of 3000 is a complete moron. did Dubya give you that idea when the 2 of you were having a beer together while watching NASCAR? or did Pat Robertson tell you that your ridiculous comment is in the Bible? the occupant of the White House had no impact on the number of deaths on 9/11. don't be stupid or naive enough to think that only the Republican party cares about America's security, that's what your party wants you to believe.

no...just the truth. one definition of crazy is being unable to distinguish reality from fallacy. Gore's speech in Saudi are the words of someone who can't make that distinction.

This must be a Republican talking point ... that Gore has gone crazy. Another shameless example of character assassination carried out by the far right.

Ernest,

you make me laugh. The economy is great. Checked out the GNP and markets lately? Gore would have prevented Abramoff? Are you kidding?

You are looking at the world through Bush-bashing colored glasses. Wake up. Or, no, stay the way. It will ensure another 8 years of a GOP Presidency beginning in 2008.

Apologies for stumbling back onto this blog at 10:20 PM, but maybe it will give me "last word" standing? (A situation "devoutly to be wished" but maddeningly to be denied it would seem, given the heated animadversions of the neocon boobocracy that seems to have dominated some 23 pages of Mr. Cillizza's quite sporting attempt to air one side of Al Gore's "Case" as our Democrat President candidate in 2008.)

One wonders what bloggery-rocks the "Case" planned for tomorrow, Thursday: "Against Gore" will turn over, and what ancient and decomposed political matter will present itself to our nostrils, for little purpose save to further affront the outraged wrath of MOST U.S. voters (a mere quarter million plurality or so) whose choice of a national leader was so officiously aborted in 2000 by a self-important "gang of nine" justices enthroned in our once-hallowed high court.

The well-reasoned blogs of (in reverse posted-time order) BRANDON, DICK PIERCE, SULLY, JENNIFERM, JASON, and JEFF (whose plug for Obama is a brilliant choice as Gore's running mate) and earliest, JUDGE CRATER, whose brief incisive analysis should be heeded by the National Democratic Committee should they ever recover from their "courage deficit".

I would hope to cross swords tomorrow in Mr. Cillizza's column "Against" with a little more stature on the part of whatever "bloggists" can be dredged up to beat their quite obviously dead horse.

The way they get played by the Roves of this world, the US media would make any Democrat look like a poor campaigner. Just go for someone who would be a good president - Gore.

RE-ELECT GORE

Fair and Balanced,
Your cretiques are reasonable and duly noted. However, I want to respond to a few of them. As weird as it sounds it is safe to say that Americans are probably much more ready to embrace a woman or even an African American as president than they are someone who is Jewish. I believe that if we ranked it the order would go a woman, an African American....and somewhere done the line a Jew. This is, again, unfortunate but there are reasons for this. The movement to break these sexist and racist barriers at the level of the presidency has been on the national radar screen for quite solme time now. As such many Americans are still not ready for it, but it has been in their minds for quite some time and at some level they are ready for this change, or at least have braced themselves for this possibility. A president who is a Jew is not something that America has really entertained as a possibility yet. In this case not only are they not ready for this, but there has not been a decades long dialouge about the possibility, which in turn makes it something that Americans will not vote for. It is too much of shock, so to speak, for this possibility and, obviously not all, but a lot of Americans have very conservative and/or racist views on who their leader will be. Please don't misunderstand me as I am not attempting to say that conservatives are racist. Unfortunately, many Americans are also anti-Semitic. I hate to use this term as I believe that all too often it is thrown around as a blanket defense to legitimate criticisms against, for example, Israel. However, there is a lot of truth to the fact that it does exist, and far too many people embrace this type of racism whether they realize it or not. Also, when you referred to the Clintons infidelity scandal you failed to mention a major point. Bill Clinton was already president. He also was immensely popular and was in his second term. Had this become a REAL issue before he was elected the story might have been different. Yes, I know there where charges against him about infidelity when he an in 92 but they were just that...charges and speculation. Nothing was proven and therefore it was ultimately hearsay. If it had been proven BEFORE he was elected it would have been a much more difficult issue to overcome. Also, Bill Clinton was one of the most charismatic positions in recent history. He had a gift that is very rare. Republicans may despise him but they cannot deny this fact as it has nothing to do with party politics, only the person. It is just a trait that anyone can process, but very very few do. Russ Feingold has some incredible qualities, but I think it's safe to say he does not process the charisma of Clinton which is not a knock against him as few democrats or republicans have this ability. Finally, I agree with you that if there ever was a senator that had the right type of voting record to become president, Feingold has it. But, it does not erase a simple fact. He has a black and white, yes or no, voting record. Herein lays the problem with making the leap from senator to president. It does not matter how great the voting record is perceived to be. In the end the senator has made a clear cut stand of almost all the issues and thus opens themselves up to attack much easier than, for example, Governors. A clear voting record gives the opposing party a clear and easy documented agenda to utilize. Essentially, it a liability at this level because Senator clearly voted yes or no and there is not much ambiguity in that. Every vote makes some people happy and some angry and thus the opposing candidate has a clear path to use against the senator in which they can and will highlight all the votes that the given senator made that makes people angry. Politicians, especially at the presidential level, need a certain amount of ambiguity to survive because getting boxed into a corner on a given issue can spell certain defeat. Overall, these are the problems Feingold has. Personally, I believe that the two best candidates are Feingold and Warner. Feingold will not get out of the primaries though, for these reasons. As such I have been noticing that Russ has been getting a decent amount of national coverage lately. The interesting part about this is that in every article I read about him from Boston to New York, D.C. to L.A. there is always republican strategists quoted lauding his finer points and saying he is one of the only democrats that will be though for them to combat. This is a republican strategy!! They know he has these liabilities and they know that he is the least likely, if he won the primary, democrat to win the presidency and so they are actively campaigning for him. This works both ways. In 96 I lived in Wisconsin and at that time they had an open primary voting system meaning if you were a republican or democrat it was irrelevant...you were allowed to vote for any party. I was and am a MASSIVE Clinton supporter. So what did I do and what did I attempt to influence all my friends to do? Vote for Pat Buchanan!! He was the worst republican choice and therefore I wanted him to win! Wisconsin has changed to a close primary since then but you get the idea. To clarify, I am in no way saying Buchanan and Feingold are comparable in any way, shape, or form except in terms of electibility to the White House. Mark my words, Warner is the best choice and with some luck and hard work there is a reasonable chance he'll win in the primaries. There are a lot of reasons for this and it will take too much time to explain but that is my opinion on the matter. Feingold would make a fantastic President though, and I would vote for him if I thought he could win. Like I said he is my favorite politician in the nation and personally, my political hero. I'm also an Iraqi-American and a Muslim. I say that because he is the only senator that voted against the war AND the patriot act. I agree with him in terms of the PA, but not Iraq. I can't stand Bush and know that he mislead or lied about Iraq to get us there BUT I am glad we went there and got rid of Saddam and disagree with Feingold’s vote about the war as do almost all Iraqi-Americans AND Iraqis in Iraq. The reason for why Iraqis are not happy right now is not because we toppled Saddam but the aftermath of no planning, massive chaos, no security, death, etc...Point is even when I disagree with Feingold I respect him because he has backbone and makes decisions based on what is right and fair, not political opportunism. The last example is he was one of the only democrats to vote yes to continue on the Clinton impeachment proceedings. I felt he had betrayed the party and was mad as hell at him but looking back, while I still disagree with his vote, I know that he felt it was the right thing to do to hear the issue before he made up his mind. He has integrity and is a maverick and those are rare qualities these days.

There's one really good reason Gore shouldn't run in 2008 (and a large part of why he wasn't elected in 2000): he doesn't have any real constituency. I have never met a single person who said "Al Gore is my guy," or "I can't think of anyone who would make a better president than Al Gore." All you ever heard about him in 2000 was that he would carry on Bill Clinton's agenda or that he was better than Bush or that it was "his turn." Al Gore may be a nice man, he may be an intelligent man, he might even make an excellent president--but he is a complete lox as a candidate. He's dull, didactic, and comes across insincere on the stump. The only thing that makes him look vaguely appealing in 2008 is that John Kerry was worse. With his obvious advantages in 2000 (virtual incumbency, prosperity, and an annoying opponent), if he couldn't win then, I can't imagine why, barring some intervening event which might burnish his image, Democrats would entertain the idea of nominating him again in 2008.

Whomever Democratics elect as the nominee will have to try to undo so much damage inflicted on the country by this administration. Republican or Democrat...it will be nice to have a real President instead of someone who really should have never been anywhere near the Presidency of the United States of America.
(and not because of the Gore/Bush vote thing but because the man is sooooo embarrasingly unqualified)

Gore was ABSOLUTELY right in 2000, and we didn't believe him. (Or the Supreme Court didn't. The fairest way to decide the election would have been by the vote of the majority.) Iraq has energized Muslim terrorists, seriously damaged our reputation for humanity (torture) and competence, and aroused worldwide opposition against us. Europeans are questioning whether to maintain the Western Alliance, Latin Americans are establishing ties with Europe and Asia, and Asians are focusing on their development. Gore would have prevented environmental degradation, been sensitive to civil liberties, and not put the economy at risk through unconscionable favoritism to crony capitalists. Nor would there have been the corruption of lobbyists writing legislation (Abramoff). Bush has displaced Harding as the WORST US president ever, and a colleague said "In the world," there has not been a president as bad anywhere else either. We failed to heed Gore's warning, and deserve another chance.

There is one very important thing that the majority of Democrats continue to forget. The last 3 elected Democrats to the office of President were Southerners: Johnson, Carter & Clinton.

To win the national contest, the Democrats have to choose a middle of the road candidate. A northern Democrat can not win a national race. How much more proof does the part need to see?

A good and effective pair, in my opinion, would be Mark Warner & Wesley Clark. Let's see how the correpublicans can challege their records!

I think it's fair to say that the development of the Internet was largely responsible for the amazing growth in the '90s, and that the person who should get the credit for that is not Bill Clinton so much as the Senator who wrote the legislation that made it possible, and campaigned for years to get it passed despite the fact that two successive presidents refused to pay any attention.

That Senator's legislation funded development of the infrastructure and mandated that the work of those engineers who designed it would be public rather than being classified.

That Senator failed to elicit Reagan's interest, and then couldn't get Bush1 interested, either, until he held hearings that started to generate some enthusiasm, after which Bush signed the legislation.

And once the the Internet started to be a reality, he tirelessly promoted it and made it a going commercial concern.

His name, of course, was Al Gore.

Jeff,

The only thing that passed is Gore's chance at President. It's dead. Get over it. He's gone crazy. Trying to justify his erroneous comments in Saudi is even more crazy.

Gore, a former journalist, actually has a very good relationship with the Press Corps.

I would vote for Gore for President...........................................................
for the University of Tennessee (but they wouldn't have him either).

All joking aside, Gore was deeply wounded by the 2000 fiasco. He did have a surplus, an healthy economy and relative peace in the world and still lost. If he didn't pull the trigger (sorry Mr. Cheney- pun unintentional) in 2004 I don't see how he could expect to contend in 2008.

A bit of context. It's not what Gore said, apparently, it's where he said. Conservatives, tend not to mention that Tony Blair's wife, Cherie, was also involved in the conference, nor that Gore had the smarts not to address questions of Israel, and also made a pitch for proactive Arab response to Iranian nuclear threat. While, I don't agree with the Moderate Voice's bottom-line on the speech. What's so wrong about saying what you believe, wherever it is, I must admit the location did add an unnecessary controversy (which raises questions), but I think this on the whole decent assessment by the Moderate Voice, gets immoderate about the style rather than the substance of the speech:

"The actual content might have been controversial, but it could have boosted his stock among some voters who applauded the speech where he took on the administration on warrantless wiretaps, then drawing verbal fire from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and others. Once again his message was a strong, sure-to-be-controversial one:
Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

The first part would have been disputed by some. The second part, less. MORE:
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Again, that's not a terrible, wreckless statement. Visa issues are emotional ones in countries. So his point there is not inflammatory.

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Once more, the controversy would have been over whether they were "indiscriminately" rounded up and then some would have questioned the "unforgivable" part while others would have said that he was right.

AND:
On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.
There's more. But Gore the point is: Gore would probably have had more impact if he delivered it on American soil. Even if he had said this to a Saudi group on American soil he would have avoided problems."

This too will pass.

About 74% of the population is over 18. Plus 8% are not naturalized citizens which brings you to about 200 M eligible to vote. About 70% are registered (140 M) and about 80% of those registered vote in Presidential elections(112M).

That means 88 M people who are eligible, do not cast votes for President of the United States, much less Governor, Senator, Congressman, dog catcher.

Gore's speech
"What possesses a former vice president of the U.S. to travel to the birthplace of Islamist terrorism and denounce his country? Only a special breed of demons, apparently, can explain Al Gore," Investor's Business Daily says in an editorial.
"The chief demon, of course, surely must be Gore's continuing quest for the presidency. Embittered he may well be by his loss of the highest office six years ago. But showing such supreme disloyalty to his country, as he did in Saudi Arabia on Sunday, cannot be condoned as an honorable means of pursuing the prize once more," the newspaper said.
"Speaking at the Jiddah Economic Forum, an event staged by oil-rich Saudi royalty, Gore indicted the American government for its 'terrible abuses' of Arabs since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Such treatment, he charged, played into the hands of al Qaeda.
"And just what was the nature of these abuses? Arabs had been 'indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.'
"Understand: 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers on that fateful day, a day that saw 3,000 Americans go to their fiery deaths, a day that created thousands more orphans, were Saudi citizens. Those hijackers lived undetected in this country precisely because immigration authorities had been permissive. So Gore believes the tightening of the rules, post-9/11, was one of a series of 'terrible abuses'?"

Brandon,

Well said.

Colin,

A lot of us know people over there. I've been there myself, have you? I'm just saying that by announcing the times of withdrawls gives the enemy an advantage. Deep breath now. that's good.

Announcing withdrawls is mostly politics anyway. Remember when Clinton said the troops in Bosnia would be home in time for Christmas in 1996? They are still there. And I support them because there would be mass killing if we left. I've been there too.

Fair and Balanced,

Whatever nitwit. How many of the 295M+ are over 18 or over? If you don't vote, you don't count. He was elected by a majority of those who value their right to vote enought to vote.

yo

Al Gore is the Dem's best chance in 2008. Why? Because he's the only one, save perhaps Russ Feingold, who can beat Hillary in the primary. Better yet, his entry into the race may persuade her to sit 08 out ... I hope.

A lot of people on here keep asking how could Gore win when he lost in 2000 with a red hot economy and peace at home and abroad. Simple: the man has rediscovered himself. He's no longer listening to the pollsters and consultants who are telling him to be the "alpha male" and wear earthtones. (By the way, Gore won the popular vote. And, contrary to popular wisdom, disgust with the Clinton scandals did hurt him.) I think you also have to factor in the learning curve: the man's ran once, and can learn from his mistakes.

It's popular among so-called centrists to slam Gore for his people vs. the powerful message. What they all ignore is that Gore surged in the polls with that message, before the media derailed him covering pseudo gaffes.

Gore can raise the money, he has the name recognitition, and nobody can doubt his grasp of both domestic and foreign issues. I think you might also have buyer's remorse who voted for Bush but our now disgusted with him. Everything Gore predicted would happen if Bush were elected has.

Then there's the best reason for an 08 run: he's the only high profile Dem willing to take a controversial stand. He was against the war way before it was popular. He's come out in support of single-payer health insurance.

Gore's biggest problem will be the media; they simply hate the man. But the same might be said for Richard Nixon, and he won eight years after losing his first run. Also, Dem's have Air America and the blogosphere as a counterbalance to the mainstream media, something Gore didn't have in 2000.

If Gore couldn't trounce Alfred Neuman in 2000, with a red hot economy, budget surplusses and a nation at peace, how in the world could he win now?

great column chris. cant wait for thursday's column, the basic premise of which should be...Gore went nutso after his 2000 loss. Gore will NEVER be the nominee, much less the President.

"Cut it out"? What is this kindergarden?

Yes, I was rubbing it in his face, but he was wrong. And save me the bullsh*t, butchie, you and everyone on here remembers the "mandate" that Bush claimed after the '04 election. You GOPers really do think that you own this country and the "majority".

>>>presidents do not create jobs.

Sure. Business doesnt get ANY stiumlation from the Govt. And that has NO effect on job creation. Puh-leeze. Why don't you ask ExxonMobile how many employees' salaries are paid from the $7B break Bush wrote into the budget for Big Oil (at the taxpayers' expense):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html

>>>It's a $12 trillion economy, and far too complex for some yutz in DC to have a major effect (even Greeenspan).

You can keep saying that and thinking that, but it will be wrong every time.

Fair and Balanced,

Fair and Balanced,

I see Chris is still beating that "presumed nominee Clinton" drum. Meanwhile, I search in vain for ONE fellow Democrat who would even consider voting for her in the primaries. In the flesh or on the internet. I have yet to run into one.

And Chris, 51% of the population already say they wouldn't vote for her (vs. 16% who would). Do ya think the party is THAT stupid?

F&B, cut it out. He's just using teh shorthand we all use when we talk about elections. If not, NO President gets anywhere near 50%, and you know it. While I mostly agree with aj, I do think everybody gets a vote on military policy, whether they served or not, whether they support the war or not. That said, if we disagree, I'm not "impugning your patriotism" just your judgement. I don't know or care who the next Dem nominee for President will be, but he or she will not have an easy task. especially if teh GOP nominates McCain. I know, we mostly elect governors lately, but McCain may be different.

BTW, presidents do not create jobs. That's a silly trope the media uses, to no good effect. It's a $12 trillion economy, and far too complex for some yutz in DC to have a major effect (even Greeenspan). Clinton was smart enough to get out of the way when the economy took off. But a lot of it was built on sand - hence the bubble.

Ah, weel, back to work.

http://www.whereistand.com/BrianR/6018

Gore: not sure if he might run, his latest speech ripping the President over illegal wire-tapping might spur the impeachment movement. It could backfire too... Maybe Gore just has a personal grudge with the President. I think he has some good reasons... Maybe he wants to represent the Party's anti-war movement, since he's not in office. I'd like to see him run, but if Clinton is polling well in '06 still, he might not. Maybe a Gore/Hillary ticket, hahah. Slick Willie back at the helm, I wish...I wish Bill would just head the U.N. already and save the world, he can.

AJ: "Elected by a majority of Americans."

Ha ha ha. WRONG! American VOTERS. and that only barely (by the official count, not including improprieties that have obviously been pointed out).

Bush received 62,040,606 votes out of 295,734,134 U.S. population (July 2005 est.)

So around 21% of the USA voted for Bush in 2004. Not even half-way to a Majority.

RMill, good comments, but again, imho things change too rapidly to call at this point, that is why I think they are moot. Dean went from being way in the back to way in front in a rather short period of time as Dems found out who he was. The DLC et al commenced their attack at that point and Dean caved, but I think RF would only welcome their attacks and dispose of them handily. On the money tip, Dean, via grassroots and netroots, totally changed the approach to political fundraising, and RF will only stand to benefit from that huge progressive network.

AJ

Our Military leaders undoubtedly know more about war than I ever will and have my utmost respect, but the Consitution mandates that CIVILIAN leadership form the foreign policy of this country. Whether we stay in Iraq or go is a question that's quite distinct from how to wage a war - it's a policy issue that only elected civilian officials get to make.

The President certainly did get elected by a majority (this time)and therefore IS MAKING those choices (not the military - they execute the decision). But you may notice that the President's choices aren't viewed as favorably today as they were 12 months ago. Winning an election doesn't give anyone a blank check to do what they want while they're in office. Especially where people ARE DYING and being gravely injured every day. FYI, some of those people who have been injured are friends and family members of mine, so you might want to be careful in saying that "liberals" disagreement with this war are injuring anyone. That's really out of bounds.

I've never been a fan of Gore the Candidate. You know, fence-sitting as much as possible, almost apologizing for taking up our time, never capable of keeping my attention.

But Gore the Real Deal - now there's a guy worth supporting. He is funny, opinionated, loud, dramatic, self-deprecating, in command of much more information than necessary and knows how to leave them wanting more.

If he has become comfortable in the Real Deal skin, I say "Run, Al, Run for Our Lives."

The other guy should stay home, write books, and appear as on talking head TV shows.

Just beacause you could post statement by Kerry and Dean doesn't mean they didn't say what I'm saying they did. Kerry said it and so did Dean. I don't have time to research references either.

Again, putting words into my mouth. I just said that Clinton isn't responsible. That doesn't mean he gets no credit...just not for all 22 million jobs. The internet would have helped Ralph Nader create at least 20 million jobs.

Do you understand? Pelosi said that she was speaking for a majority of the democrats. Do I believe that? Maybe not. But the party certainly has an issue with their elected leaders.

The President is the Commander in Chief. Elected by a majority of Americans. Military leaders earned rank. Are you either? No, then shut up and let them make the decisions. Your armchair quarterbacking along with Dean will get people killed.

Having been involved in primary presidential politics, I can tell you first hand that they are not moot points. Many primary campaigns are on shoestring budgets just to make third place showings and the money dries up fast if you can't match expectations.

And the likely scenario is that resources are expended early to make a good impression in NH or Iowa, only not to be able to support a national showing in the south and midwest.

I am not convinced about sitting Senator's being a deterant. It just so happens that this is how things have worked out. Being a governor shows executive decision making experience. It is, however, very difficult to maintain a senatorial schedule while on the campaign trail and many Senators eventually resign mid-term to pursue the White House.

You cannot go into the Iowa Caucuses and NH primary without looking ahead to South Carolina and laying groundwork in the midwest. All these things cost money. For all but the most well-healed candidates, it is a house of cards that will fall over under its own weight.

I have enormous respect for Al Gore. But suspect the best thing he can do for Democrats and the country, is to remain a straight talking tell it like it is elder statesman who doesn't need to parse his words and calculate positioning. He appears more appealing now because he's been above politics the past couple years. Put him back in that fishbowl however and he'll be just like all the rest of them.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

AJ - boy, this response stuff is easy if you just say things and then don't support your statements. If I didn't have to get back to work, I'd post some links to Kerry and Dean's statements.

Also, glad to hear that b/c Pelosi says something that means all democrats and the party's leaders believe it.

Finally, just so I understand you, is your point that a president does have some control over the economy when they're a Republican but not when they're a Democrat? I readily concede that the tax rebates Bush gave out helped the economy short-term - that's why I thought THOSE were a good idea. I ALSO believe that the economic plan passed by Clinton in 1992 (without a SINGLE republican vote, so NO I don't think the result would have been the same if Bush I had won)spurred the economic boom that created 22 million jobs.

Oh, and by "people qualified to make the decisions," does that mean anyone who skipped out on Vietnam (like Bush II, Cheney, etc.)or do you just have to be a republican? I mean come on - because I disagree with you I don't have a right to my opinion? Sounds like you have an interesting view on how a democracy is supposed to work...

>>>As far as polls, it just takes all little digging on the website

Sorry RMill, I looked, but not hard enough I guess. :)

IMHO, money and TV airtime wont be an issue come the Primary Cycle. Once there are debates and countless appearances on shows of all types, the impact of actual advertising spending is quite reduced (in my opinion... i have no facts to substantiate this, sorry).

I hear your points, but again, it seems that money keep coming up as the big issue and the fact that he is a Senator is a big issue.... And again, I think these issues are totally moot. I think things can and DO change very rapidly once a Presidential/Primary campaign gets into full swing, and I think that there is not one candidate on either side of the aisle who is better positioned to thrive in the heat of battle like RF.

One Point for Gore

The only time in American history when a former Vice President, who had lost his own bid for the Presidency came back to win the Presidency was also the last time there was a completely open nomination on both sides (1968- Richard Nixon).

Occupations of Elected Presidents Since 1900:

5 sitting governors
GW Bush
Clinton
FD Roosevelt
Wilson
McKinley

2 former governors
Reagan
Carter

5 vice presidents;
GHW Bush, Johnson, Truman, Cooledge, T Roosevelt

1 former vice president
Nixon

2 sitting US Senators
Kennedy, Harding

2 Cabinet Secretaries
Taft, Hoover

1 General
Eisenhower

How can you optimistic about a former VP who speaks lies? Saudi were not indiscriminately rounded up like Gore said. All had visa violations. Should we just let visas expire and do nothing?

Colin,
You are wrong. Kerry said it. Period.

Dean said it. Read a transcript on CNN. you lose again.

Clinton created 22 millions jobs? No way. The brand new internet did that. It's amazing that Clinton always gets credit from democrats for that. (Wonder who would get credit if H.W won in 1992? Same number of jobs would have been created.) Even if you think it's true, the Republicans controlled Congress for 4 of those years.

Pelsoi said she was speaking for majority of democrats. Fact. you lose a third time. Can't publicly speak as minority leader with personal thoughts anyway. that's BS.

I said nothing about your patriotism. You just need to leave the military decisions to those qualified to make them.

"Gore is the Danish Cartoons -- not funny, a loser, gasoline on the flames, but just as likely to win the presidency as those cartoons."

I'm glad to see you Republicans are optimistic and not negative, unlike we Democrats.

1. >>>He is Jewish.

I was wondering if anybody had the cojones to bring this up. While I admit this is, on its surface, a tough issue, I think that the majority of Americans are ok with it, just as they seem to be about women candidates and african-american candidates.

2. >>>He just got divorced for infidelities.

This is not good on a personal level. But again, personal indiscretions are typically kept pretty quiet even when they are made public. Look at Bill/Hillary Clinton debacle. He was impeached for lying, not b/c he had an adulturous affair. The fact of the matter is that people are human and some relationships dont work out. I am minimizing the issue, but b/c I really dont know anything about it and also b/c I dont think it is going to be an issue in the election (just like GWB's cocaine probs and alcoholism did not become major issues in his elections).

3. >>>He is a Senator

Another fair criticism, historically. But if you ask me, his voting record shows considerable personal fortitude and a solid grasp of what really matters to the country's well-being. I think his record as Senator only backs up his political beliefs... And thank God we have no more "I was for it before I was against it" foibles. He means what he says and says what he means and that is in far too short a supply in D.C.

>>>If you noticed none of them have to do with issues, but unfortunately that is how the game works...

I agree with Karl Rove. Security IS going to be the #1 issue for the next couple of election cycles. If that is the case, the GOP had better PRAY that RF is not the Dem candidate. And God knows, he will also eat the GOP alive on Domestic issues. That much is a given.

Fair,

I think the thing that Feingold has going for him is a lack of inflated sense of himself (a rare thing for a senator). He tells a story about landing with Hillary and McCain in Iraq, with all the service women rushing up to Hillary and all the service men rushing to McCain, leaving Russ to carry his luggage. Now, Russ may have other luggage related to religion, ideology, and divorce, but he has a more appropriate sense of himself than his erstwhile reform partner McCain has shown of late with his Obama remarks. He's smart, he's competent, he's honest, and he's forthright. So maybe he will surprise me. I just think he is better positioned for the Democratic primaries, than in the general election. I

As a republican, I hope Gore runs. The only thing we would have to do is show his speech from Saudi Arabia. Gore got $200,000 to bad mouth America in the home country of 15 of 19 hijackers. Let us see how many in the audience aspire to be suicide bombers. Gore is the Danish Cartoons -- not funny, a loser, gasoline on the flames, but just as likely to win the presidency as those cartoons.

AJ:

Fantastic "ideas" in your last post - glad to see how constructive you are.

With respect to Healthcare, I'm happy to send you some book titles if you'd really like to read up on the topic - there are a variety of possibilities out there that would, surprisingly, be an improvement over this administration's plan - ignore the problem. I prefer ALL of them to doing nothing.

As far as John Kerry goes, I guess you didn't watch the debates or you wouldn't be confused about the UN point. Bush ran a great campaign in labeling Kerry - I give credit where credit is due - and Kerry was FAR from eloquent. That being said, your statement is simply not true. Sorry.

On your tax point, take a look at how "trickle down" economics worked in the 1980's and over the last 6 years vs. the results of the Clinton economic plan. Despite conservative talking points to the contrary, GDP growth in the private sector (which doesn't count the HUGE expansion of government under Reagan and Bush II, which you chose not to address) was smaller in the 1980's than in the stagnant 1970's. Sorry if I'm more concerned with the middle class and the economy in general than with the uber-wealthy - that's just one of my values. You remember how important those are, right? And again, Clinton created 22 million jobs and 8 years of sustained economic growth. Any comments on that?

Finally, to again discuss Pelosi and Dean. 1. Dean has NOT called for immediate withdrawal - sorry, just not true no matter what Rush says on the radio. 2. Pelosi made VERY clear her call was a PERSONAL one and not in her role as minority leader. Leadership on both sides do this from time to time - as an example, note that Dick Army noted his personal hostility to "No Child Left Behind" when he was majority leader, even though he had to support it when it came to a vote.

Finally, thank you for calling me an "ignorant liberal" before impugning my patriotism. I think that's definitely a good way to move the country forward and address the serious challenges the country faces. Not that you care, but I'm actually conservative on some issues and liberal on others. As hard as this may be to believe, disagreeing with this President doesn't actually make you either "liberal" or unpatriotic. It just means you think doing something differently is a better option.

No, money is not the end all beat all of electability. But it is not called "the mothers milk of American politics" for nothing.

And no one is officially announced for 2008. Its all speculative. If Feingold is working so hard on representing the citizens of Wisconsin, that is admirable but hardly a ringing endorsement for getting a jump on a presidential bid.

As far as polls, it just takes all little digging on the website

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

You can dismiss these factors of electability all you want but each plays its role in determining viable national candidates. Networks get you money. Money gets you the podium to voice your policies. Polls cycles through all the factors, reinforcing money and networks and vice versa.

And that is what I meant by self-evident. There is no vast national media conspiracy to keep Feingold down. He has not generated the national wherewithal though networks and fundraising to be a national factor. Is it fair? NO Is it relevant? You bet it is. Does it doom him to permanant obscurity. Absolutely not but he will need to drastically alter his tactics if he really wants to be president and, in my opinion, he is lagging seriously behind.

Good post AndyR. 'Cept what's with the "amazingly" ;)

To this guy or gal "Posted by: | February 14, 2006 01:38 PM"

So does the person with the biggest campaign chest always win?

>>>That fact is part evidence that he has no national network established.

No, that fact is part evidence that he has done very little national fundraising in deference to... umm.. ACTUALLY DOING HIS JOB for the people of Wisconsin. Imagine that.

>>>The fact that of a dozen national polls

Of which you link to none. Give me a link. Just putting pollingreport.com isnt convincing. And I went to PR.com and they dont have one single poll (as far as I can tell) that tests potential Dem candidates in the 2008 primaries. So, please provide evidence as to your dozen national polls.

>>>these truths are self-evident.

I know you were being facetious, but no they are not. That all men (and women) are created equal.... THAT is a truth that is self-evident. That Russ Feingold is "unelectable" for the reasons you listed, are opinions and im looking for fact.

In regards to the fundraising issue and the polling issue, Russ hasn't even officially declared himself a candidate for President. So for the moment, to the general public he is just a "liberal" senator from a small midwest state, or he is virtually unknown. When he gets on the national podium, it will be apparent that he knows what he is talking about and that he is an exceptional leader.

Colin,

Your facts are very off...makes me negative, I guess.

1. Yes, we should. Where are the details?

2. Oh. Kerry was for the UN being involved in the decision process before he was against it. Blah blah blah.

3. Duh. They spend and buy services and products which creates jobs for the rest. The wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 70% of the tax burden. Not fair? Should it be 100%

4. Isn't Pelosi the democratic leadership? House Minority Leader. The top house democrat? And you said that I need to do research. hmmm. Dean called for a full withdrawl. Don't put words into my mouth. I just think an ignorant liberal like you has no business deciding military withdrawls. Let the National Command Authority do that.

SR,
I would love to see Jimmy Carter run.
As a side note to that, one of the more interesting subplots of 2004 was the rift between the Carter wing (Dean) and the Kennedy wing (Kerry) of the democratic party. I guess that Kennedy and President Carter really don't like each other and have sort of been at odds for a long time. When Clinton won the presidency it was a big win for the Kennedy side of the party. Dean's surge and semi-endorsement by Carter has put Jimmy back as a player in the Party philosophy.
Also thanks Brookline for pointing out that stuff. I had no idea that Feingold had family issues to deal with as well.

Gore strongly supported the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and voted in favour of it. (The final vote was 52-47 in the Senate.) So I don't consider Gore's position on war to be "pure" at all.

Though the circumstances might be unique, I'm also very skeptical of any failed major party nominee running for president again. The last time it worked was Nixon who lost in 1960 and won in 1968 (narrowly). Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Bush Sr. all ended their presidential ambitions or careers when they won their party's nomination and lost the general. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true of Gore and Kerry. Otherwise, I still prefer Jimmy Carter.

My point on Warner was that compared to say, a Governor Richardson, his foreign policy credentials lend better to VP.

Warner is certainly a force however. I just wish he was still in office. Out of work politicians don't get elected very often either (Vilsack should have run for re-election- or was he term limited?).

Fair and Balanced,
I am originally from Wisconsin and Russ Feingold is my favorite politician in the nation and my political hero....now let me explain why he can't win the presidency. 1. He is Jewish. Kennedy won and he was the 1st Catholic pres ever and there was much hysteria about it. Also, Catholics are the largest religious block in the country and they STILL have/had a hard time winning the presidency. Honestly, this country is not ready to accept a Jewish president yet and in Feingold's case this is very unfortunate. 2. He just got divorced for infidelities. So, not only did he cheat on his wife, but he is now single. So you think Americans are going to make the unprecedented choice of ignoring 2 major prejudices by picking some who is Jewish AND single for the White House? 3. He is a Senator. The Senate is one of the worst offices to make the jump from to the presidency. I'm not going to get into all the political reasons why but look it up if you do not believe me. Beyond that, governor is one of the best. So issues, for example, about Warner being light of foreign policy add up to a SO WHAT! Most presidents come from the governor’s ranks than anywhere else. Ultimately, these are the real reasons why Feingold can't win. If you noticed none of them have to do with issues, but unfortunately that is how the game works....

Gore has done little to lead the democrats in the past six years and would thus appear to be an opportunist if he ran in 2008. I like Fiengold, but he is a technocrat and a good one, but I don't see him with a vision.

Where are the democrats with a vision of America that Americans can see and vote for? Right now were so deep in the dark hole Bush has dug us into that any light being shined on a better future would be well received.

-Gore does not have it.
-Fiengold does not have it.
-Hillary might, but I haven't seen enough.
-Kerry is like Fiengold, too technical with little vision.
-Dean is a loon.
-Murtha is honest but lacks vision.

People want to see what the US will be like after four years of a democrat being in the White House. That is what needs to be developed and then championed by someone who can carry that vision to the American people. Not generalities like balancing the budget, being smart in Iraq and working with allies. I want to hear how America will prosper by competing equally with the likes of China and Europe. I want to hear how I will be able to afford fuel. I want to hear how we will work as a nation to develop our own energy resources like ethanol. I want to hear how in 20 years we, through NASA, will make space and the moon places we have a good reason to go to. Its the vision thing and the democrats need to begin painting it soon and show us what they will make of this nation and why we all should want it. Then they need someone to lead with the vision. I haven't seen either the vision or the leader yet.

I can't say that is an accurate statement.

Bayh raised $3.3 M for his campaign and another $1.5 M for his PAC and had a combined $10 M+ on hand cash.

Warner raised $3.3 M for his PAC and had $2.4 M on hand (I could not find his campaign info).

Sen. John Kerry raised $5.5 M, spending most of it and had only $300K left (Could not get PAC info).

And these guys don't have to worry about a re-election bid.

And for all the drama in 2004, where is Howard Dean? It sparked and fizzled.

I am not trying to disparage anyones favorite candidate but from an objective standpoint, Feingold is lagging far to behind on electability issues.

AJ - For someone complaining about negativity, I must say you sound awfully negative yourself. To address your comments in order:

1. Healthcare - Yes, Hillary's plan was not a good one and didn't work - even she has admitted as much. Moreover, the Dems definitely DID fail in not fixing healthcare from 1948 forward, when Harry Truman first called for universal coverage. Does that mean we shouldn't try and change the fact that the richest and greatest country in the world has 45 million people uninsured - again, which includes millions of minors? That sounds a little defeatist to me.

2. War on Terrorism - The idea that perhaps US forces shouldn't be sent to fight and die (over 2,000 dead and13,000 wounded so far)until we're sure our intelligence is correct doesn't seem like a silly idea to me, and in no way gives the UN a veto over our decisions. Might want to re-watch the debates too, since Kerry said specifically the UN doesn't decide anything. Oh by the way, this guy named Osama something is STILL at large 5 years after the attacks.

3. Taxes & the Economy - If you're an economist, I'd love to hear how tax cuts to the top 1% of US tax payers spurs economic growth. Also, I'm still not exactly clear on how it's "conservative" to expand the size of government more than any president since LBJ (you can look it up, it's true)while cutting taxes during war time. FYI, Clinton's economic policy create 22 million jobs in 8 years, lead to literally unprecedented and sustained economic growth, and provided surpluses rather that HUGE structural deficits. Feel free to respond to these points by calling me unpatriotic since the facts aren't on your side.

4. Howard Dean & Nancy Pelosi - Ms. Pelosi endorsed a view neither I nor the democratic leadership agrees with. Sort of similar to how Chuck Hagel's view on Iraq is different than the president's. Howard Dean has explicitly endorsed benchmark withdrawals, which I repeat is EXACTLY what this administration will end up endorsing - even while attacking democrats - in the next 12 months. I understand you would apparently rather keep US forces in Iraq for the next Decade and spend another 300 BILLION dollars +, but respectfully I think that the majority of the Country would disagree with you on that one.

I wish Al Gore had been our president, but I also believe he had his time and now it's time for someone else to run the top of the ticket. The same goes for Kerry. besides, it took Kerry over a year to decide on a 'plan' about Iraq and he ran a lousy campaign as well. Hillary Clinton? No! I voted for her husband twice and I wouldn't trust either one of them now. She voted for the use of force in Iraq which is forgiveable, but to continue to refuse to call for a pullout, or to continue (as she has) to refuse to call for any reduction in forces, is a disgrace. The slightest turn-around on her part now on the issue of Iraq would be too late and have such a bad smell to it that the republicans would have a field day pummeling her. America needs a president who's going to protect American lives, not destroy them. All the other potential candidates are just as bad e.g., Biden etc, they all would keep us in Iraq and at war. Warner of VA is too unknown; no one knows if he even knows where Iraq is and John Edwards might as well be the Phantom of the Opera; does anyone know where John Edwards is? Sen. Lieberman? If you want a republican, you might as well vote for their candidate. Russ Feingold would make a good candidate; he was against the war and still is against the war and he's no political hack like Clinton. When he says something, there's no doubt about trusting what he says as honest.

Voudon,

I think your thinking on the Democratic race is similar to mine. So apparently, folks with significantly different politics can size up the landscape in a similar way. As for your aversion to Newt, more power to you! The message I'm working on works best against Newt.

So, the Dems want to put Gore up as a two-time loser. Go ahead, make our day! Apart from Honest Joe Lieberman, there's not much visible hope yet of a Democrat victory in 2008.

Amazingly I agree with Fair and balanced on this one. I don't see a problem with a Feingold run.
Let's take it step by step.
-No Substaintal Fundraising. His PAC is right on track with the rest of the second runners (Bayh, Warner etc). Also he can very easily tap into the Dean internet cash cow, which by the way is going to be an even larger amount of money then 6 years ago (all of us graduated and have Real jobs now and have had 6 years to stew)
-He is too liberal. All he has to do is say McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform. That one law will be worth a mile in the general election. Not to mention he took on BOTH parties when they wrote that.
-No national base. Again we return to the Dean group. He is extremely popular in the progressive community that IS a national base. Now some people would say that this is a bad thing, but I disagree. It allows him to say what he wants to the american public without having to worry about upsetting the Left since they already really like him. Howard Dean was very similar to this. IF you listened to his policies it was all very middle of the road (minus the Iraq war stuff), but the progressives didn't care (it also works the same for GW and the far right).

I however think his best attribute will be as a reformer. He can show through many examples that he is a TRUE bipartisan reformer. Just like how GW used the "bring values back to the White house" Feingold can use "bring integrity back to the White House".

I think we should all step back a second and realize that the Dems will support whomever comes out of the primary, and that should be whoever we think would be the best for the country. Dems need to stick to their guns, stop thinking about this electability question, because its bogus. Look at Kerry, without the alternative of Dean (who I supported) and then without Bush, I don't think this guy deserved one vote after his campaign performance. That ain't electable to me.

Dems need to look at 2004 and say, we need someone with passion and ideas (and Dems have plenty of ideas, its just that after 50 years of progress and prosperity, you're tweaking and perfecting the policies that made this the greatest country for the past 80 years, i.e. the New Deal, Civil Rights, Great Society), the rest we'll leave up to regular people in the private sector to innovate.

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above post.

An incumbant US Senator running for re-election has $793,000 on hand and his PAC has $289,119 on hand. He has raised less than $2 M all told according to the FEC (FEC.gov or politicalmoneyline.com). This is not the fund raising machine for a national campaign. He ranks 57th on the list of US Senate candidates and has been our-fundraised by 25 US Congressman.

That fact is part evidence that he has no national network established.

Is there such thing as an unbiased poll? I don't know of a national poll that asks, is candidate X too liberal. The fact that of a dozen national polls, done by various national organizations on Democratic primary scenario's since Election day 2004, his name only comes up once, attests that these polling experts either don't consider him a significant factors or the poll resondants don't. (www.pollingreport.com)

Could he become a more forceful contender over the next two years? Possibly but he would have to do a lot of catch-up work.

This is no knock on his policies, voting record or measure of intelligence or integrity. (Nor against Gore's for that matter.) Unfortunately, in American Politics 2006, these traits are not the deciding factors as to "Who is electable".

In a perfect world without consequence, would I like to vote for Al Gore-Russ Feingold? Sure. But I know that this is a doomed ticket in the real world and the consequences are the likes of Bill Frist or George Allen in charge of the country.

I wish I could give you more "hard evidence" but like they used to say, these truths are self-evident.

Colin,

Well, then, why doesn't Howard Dean talk in details about these proposals instead of call ing all Republicans "white Christians"? Is it because the Democrats don't really have anything so remarkably intelligent and signifcantly better in their plans and proposals referenced by you? Healthcare? The Democrats tried that with Hillary. Why didn't the Democrats fix healthcare in the 30 years of Congressional control they maintained before 1994? Maybe I need to rephrase my statement: The Democrats do not have any good plans to promote. Kerry did indeed have a plan: he said he would let the UN decide how to fight the war on terrorism. A plan, yes. But I guess the majority of Americans did not agree with that plan.

Repeal the tax cuts that are giving us a booming economy? Why? 10% of the wealthiest Americans pay 70% of all tax revenues.

Consensus of benchmark withdrawls? Are you sure? Does Pelosi agree with that? Dean? Hmmm...no! They want immediate withdrawls. No consensus at all, I'm afraid.

Gore would be a much more viable candidate than H. Clinton for the Democrats. Think about it - what state would H. Clinton win that Kerry or Gore did not? She is despised in Middle America, whereas Gore may be disliked but is not despised. Gore just needs to tone down his style and stop yelling at people all the time. Gore could conceivably win Ohio, Florida, Louisiana and Arkansas, whereas H. Clinton and Kerry could not win any of these.

A Gore-Warner ticket or Gore-Bayh ticket could win. Edwards is a non-starter. A one-term Governor has a much greater chance than a one-term Senator with a nice smile. Edwards has never really accomplished anything. I am not a fan of Gore at all and wouldn't vote for him in a general election (except against Newt Gingrich, who is a complete fraud), but to be realistic I think Gore has a better chance than H. Clinton.

Excellent post Colin, I second it!

While this Fix article is good in describing why Gore could win the primaries, it says nothing about his ability to win the general election. It's the same with Hillary...yes she can easily win the primary but that doesn't mean (and probably is the case) she will win the election. If the democrats want to chose a winner, they should look to Gov. Mark Warner. He is already being described as too right wing by the Hillary machine as a way to bring herself to the left. Warner is not a right winger, nor is he a lefty. He is a centrist democrat, something this country both wants and needs!

http://democraticway.blogspot.com/

David,

I buy most of what you say. But, as for Hillary, I would try my darnedest to prove you wrong if she were the Dem candidate and I think she has more potential as a leader than you do. With Gore its a matter of voting my values and wanting to win at the same time. That works for me. With Hillary, we'll probably see those DLC professional pol types emerge again, when we need less poll driven democracy and more citizen democracy.

AJ - A frequent refrain from republicans seems to be that democrats are purely "negative" and don't have any ideas. Out of curiosity, does that mean that pointing out that the party that controls both the WH, the House, and the Senate hasn't addressed the major issues of the day is an inappropriate action for the opposition party to take? Moreover, after a President has been in office for 6 years, with his party also controlling the legislature for almost the entire time, is it really strange that folks would like to know why THAT PARTY hasn't addressed the country's problems?

By the way, if you pick an issue and then do some research, I think you'll find that Democrats have a position even if its not one you agree with (which is different, I might note, than not having anything to say at all). For Iraq, there is a consensus in favor of targeted withdrawals tied to benchmarks (FYI, this is what Bush will end up doing too). For the economy, Democrats across the caucus’s spectrum support a repeal of the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in favor of fixing the alternative minimum tax that punishes the middle class and trying to move away from structural budget deficits our grandchildren will end up paying for. With respect to Healthcare, there are a variety of proposals on the Democratic side to address the 45 MILLION uninsured people in this country, a significant portion of whom are minors. Whether you agree with these ideas is obviously your prerogative, but the suggestion that they don't exist is simply disingenuous.

Bush fake Texas accent does not fool true americans Bush is from Connecticut as his dad was He did not move to Texas till he was in his 20s Next lie sad neocons!

Home state = residence = Texas. Geez, he was Gov there after all.

>>>Too liberal, no national base, no substantial fundraising network.

Im sorry, I should have said (and meant to say) one VALID reason. Please post at least one bit of evidence to back up a claim.

For example, if you think he is "too liberal" show me an unbiased, well-respected poll that shows this. As of yet, I have seen zero evidence to support any of the typical claims that get scattered around.

I have been an Al Gore fan since his first run in '88. I remember the impact of his selection as VP by Clinton in 92, going against geographical considerations but creating a team of the best and brightest the Dems had to offer. I think Al is still the best and brightest of the Democratic pack, and teamed with an up and comer like Warner, this could be the ticket that will give us not just 8, but 16 years of Democratic rule, with Warner taking over in 2016. Hilary will never be an effective leader - anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. She is one of the most polarizing figures ever to hit the party. She is unelectable in my book and a Hilary nomination would set the party back another 8 years. So go for it if you want more of the same. I think Al has some credibility as a global figure, something that we seem to forget when choose our leaders. He is a Dem with values, Vietnam experience, significant international experience, a solid and photogenic family, and real passion. Try to find that in another contender. He was also humble enough to let the party do its thing without him for one cycle, and seeing it fall on its face creates the perfect scenario for the second coming of Al.

I voted for Kerry in the primaries. I think if he would have used Edwards better and was not so cute about positioning himself, he would have won the election. I still think he's a smart guy, but he is culturally out of tune. Gore has gotten more comfortable in his skin.

I never thought Dean was electable, though he is a nice guy (would make a good head of HHS). Feingold, I believe is potentially electable, but the political landscape has to shift in this country. There has been too much indoctrination by the hard right since 1980 and this will take some time to undo.

Though Feingold would have a rough time in 2008, even as a VP, I think, as I mentioned before he would make definite sense for a Warner ticket to wrap up the nomination and stir up some enthusiasm, somewhat less sense for Hillary, and probably tip the ticket against Gore. Unless Gore and Feingold developed a terrific rapport.

I think they have the potential to make a great ticket. After all Bush chose Cheney, not Lincoln Chaffee. You don't have to balance a ticket, but I would need to see that chemistry in action, before I would commit. Also, some great ideas. Hey, I've have some I'll probably share, but not for public consumption right now.

Bush was born in New Haven, CT in 1946 but grew up in Texas.

Although I agree there is a stigma of losing a national election, I doubt it would have much of an effect on Gore. The Gore since 2000 is much more appealing to me now than it was then. He speaks without much regard to special interests simply because he isn't running for anything. That freedom is immeasurable. Look at how many times his speeches have generated news coverage.

I think he will get into the race--and I think Hillary will not run (which will hurt the GOP fundraising, because that is the only way they seem to know how to raise money these days). That will be a huge opening for a recognizable candidate. I do think that in three years the American public will be less and less inclined to vote for the GOP seeing as Bush has screwed so many things up. McCain will pander too much to the right to get any independent voters to swing his way. I would have voted for him in 2000 against Gore, but I won't vote for him now.

I am a huge Al Gore fan and as a prior poster stated, as long as he stays true to himself and doesn't follow the changing and conflicting whims of so called strategists, he will do great! I hope he runs!

On Feingold-

Too liberal, no national base, no substantial fundraising network.

Larry, when you go outside and look up is the sky blue? or do you see some other color? Bush is from TX not CT. Wow.

Why do you think he can't he win, Jeff? That's what I'm getting at. Please explain. And same goes for anyone watching. Why do people think that Feingold cant win?

Btw, Jeff, did you vote for Kerry over Dean, Clark, or Edwards b/c he was "more electable"?

Al Gore was already elected pres by 600000 votes over Bush. Bush lost his home state of Connecticut 2 times. Can neocons ever speak the truth?

Al Gore wont run, and Hillary cant win. You need to look somewhere else for a possible winning candidate.

I'm glad we're discussing the case "for" Gore today, the discussion "against" him, should really be something.

Another thing, the stigma attached to a former presidential loser like Gore is very real, real enough that the dems shoudl realize that he is not capable of winning the presidency. Sort of the same thing applies to Hillary--while she looks good as a candidate, the dems should realize that she is just not electable given her personality deficits and ties to Clinton. The best thing for the dems is to really get behind a NEW candidate without ties to the Clinton administration.

Ironically, the same holds for the republicans, their best chance of holding onto the presidency is for a candidate with little or no real connections to the G.W. Bush adminstration. Should be refreshing.

There are many Democratic hopefuls who would be good for the country, but, sadly, most are unelectable. Vice President Gore is one of them. Governor Mark Warner has proven that he is an excellent executive, can attract Democrats and reasonable Republicans, and he has what is essential to a 2008 Presidential candidate--likeability. He came from a middle class home, went to Harvard, started a business and was super successful. His tenure as Governor of Virginia made Virginia the envy of other states. He is fiscally responsible and a person who can unite diverse groups for the common good. What more do the Dems want? They've got a winner. Why don't they see it? But maybe that's been their big problem.

Al Gore has credibility on Iraq? That's like saying Bill Clinton has credibility on family values.

Fair,

Sorry, I love Feingold. I just want Democrats to win. I think he makes sense as a balance as VP to someone more conservative as President. I don't want to hand the Republicans a McGovern type victory. Feingold is as much a favorite of mine as Gore, except I think the latter is electable in 2008.

Can we please keep yesterday's news off the front burner.

No to Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards. They have all run and all lost.

Senator Clinton is the most frightening as her money could dominate in a primary only to lose in November. Her negatives are way too high.

Bayh, Richardson, Warner and Vilsack, in some combination, are the best hopes for regaining the White House in my opinion. All have executive experience. Vilsack and Warner are light in foreign affairs and would be better running mates. I would love to see Bayh-Richardson or Richardson-Bayh.

not really. ok...maybe passive agressive negative comments in some parts. You state that 9/11 was used for political advantage. That's pretty negative, don't you think.

Gore does have a lot to offer, but "rock star appeal?" That's stretching it hard. I'm not going to make predictions about who will be best but facts are facts Gore has a lot to offer.

Al Gore? Why not Al Franken? Or Cindy Sheehan? Or Martin Sheen? Or Anna Nicole Smith? They've all got about the same chances...

Al Gore has what Kerry and H. Clinton lack--credibility on Iraq and the environment. I think the criticism is mostly ephemeral and likely to be dismissed by voters in a high stakes election like 2008.

I'm a moderate republican from Virginia and I'd be hard-pressed to not vote for Mark Warner should he run for president. The man gets things DONE and does not pander to extremists on either side of the political fence.

"Entirely negative comments"? I think we are looking at two different blog sites.

Jeff, gotta reason why you are so down on Feingold?

I have yet to see one reason why he shouldnt be our next president.

Anyone? One reason?

Re: Gore, I hope he runs if he wants to. Everybody who WANTS to run (who is legally allowed to) should run. Who are we to say one way or another? That's why we have the electoral process.

I think that Chris Cilliza just wanted to start a big argument for the fun of it.

Jeff, your completely negative comments are merely reinforcing Carla's points. You have nothing constructive to add. The Democrats are the divisive party. They just can't stand the fact that Bush won twice. They say things like he lied to support the Iraqi war with no evidence whatsover to back it up. Look at Howard Dean. Is Howard being a harmonious force when he states that "all Republicans are "white Christians"? He is probably the most divisive force in the country right now because he can't figure out a positive agenda to preach.

I'm just a nice guy, Jeff! :-) Oh, and Kathleen -- you need to go read the constitution!!

Jim,

Like I've said before, Feingold is great, but I don't see the presidency in the cards for him, at least notat this time. His only chance is to get in