I think Al Gore would be a great president. He's highly intelligent, articulate, an experienced former VP during peaceful, prosperous times. He's an environmentalist, he is educated, classy, "presidential" and he is the antithesis of the current incompetent who is currently the illegal occupant of the WH. I hope he becomes the Democratic nominee in 2008 and our next president.

The thing about slogans ,gore,s a looser, get it over, just as an example,thats the kind of crap that even advertisers are struggling with with reguards to the generality. It is tough for them to generalize anymore to the general public in so far as what is catchy from within the general public intelligence factor,as it is tough to calculate these days, though the republicians seem to have captured a broad general sense of it threw stipidity.Fence mending, for instance as a political phrase applied as a means of political shoring up of differences brough about by arrogant political policies.You are either with us or against us,tough talk hua?And politicans seem to still use no brainer slogans on those compaign posters.If you think Gore reinventing himself is a thing,how about reinventing a thing called the general mentality.Indeed/sticks and stones, old mother hubbard,jack and jill,humpty dumpty.,Send hillery to the hill, your vote for Greed in your vote indeed,Greed Mounger for the US 36th, district.Indeed now will it stop?

There's over two years before the 2008 presidential nomination jousting begins in ernest.
In that time Gore will have the opportunity to reinvent himself at least ten more times.
If whatever he decides he believes in by then makes him the best the Democrats can come up with Al Sharpton would stand a better chance of being elected.
Get over it- Gore's a loser.

Cris, you people got one thing to consider and in all areas of profession,politics in particular.Now the young republician thing in a trend is seemingly about changing the way government is being run.And baby boomer retirement is on the plate.It,s about the money right?Here,s the point, nobodys going to fade out and Al gore is most certainly not going to fade out.More baby boomers are educated ,and have resources and are going to live longer.All that happened during the Nixon adminstration did not and will not go away.Ok ,so here,s the point having the time to do what you want to do ,is also haveing the time the usher in the changes.THINGS WILL CHANGE. You can bank on that.

Al Gore is a good and smart man, was a good Vice President, and would be a very good President. But he is kind of a lousy candidate. His speaking style just isn't very inspirational...goes from wooden to yelling.

Hillary is and will be the front runner, and there will be one or two of the current crop that emerge as the anti-Hillary.

People will begin to realize that Hillary is no longer the "not going to make cookies for my man" 40-something anymore. She's the smart, caring, moderate almost grandmotherly Senator from one of the nation's largest and most powerful state. After 8 years of Bush, she may not look so bad! Yeah, McCain is the guy to beat, but if continues to wrap himself in Bush's mantle, he is going to be looked at as more of the same in new wrapping.

Joe Biden is a wild card. The media love him. The media disparage him as a windbag. Evan Bayh is kind of a young Al Gore. Russ Feingold now has made a name for himself...maybe mud, maybe someone with guts. Mark Warner is the flavor of the moment. John Kerry will go nowhere...really there's more of a been there, done that feeling than with Al Gore. And then there's John Edwards and Wes Clark.... worth watching at least.

If not for the feeling that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is too cute for American History, I would look forward to the Hillary Clinton Presidency!! Common Sense, Competence and Compassion! True American Values!

al gore will never be president of the united states.

al gore will never again be the democratic nominee.

>

Gore has been the dark horse for '08 since the new year started. Probably over the Xmas holidays his family gave him the go ahead. The only problem is you really have to run (fire in the belly) if you want it.

Losers have staged fantastic comebacks. FDR was the losing VP to Davis in 1920 and went on to what most pwople would call a very sucessful career in politics.

Also remember "Tricky Dick" Nixon, lost in 1960 and was elected to the WH twice.

And, remember R. Reagan lost the nomination on the floor of the 1976 convention and suceeded a little bit later.

RUN AL RUN, but only if you are ready to fight for it -- no one is going to give it to you.

Bobby -

For the LAST time - Barack Obama IS NOT RUNNING IN '08! Get it out of you head. As far as Richardson goes, he has NO chance o win nomination, but maybe at a VP nod.

Bush lost his home state of Connecticut twice too

Gore did run on the prosperity of the 1990's and couldn't convince his home state voters to elect him.

So, the man who had the political smarts to be among the first to endorse Howard Dean in '04 after having blown what should have been a slam dunk election in 2000 is considering (or being considered) for running as the Democrat candidate in '08.
Spare the party and the country; stick to creating a new media network. At least the only losers in that venture will be your financial investors.

Gore run again? I like the guy personally, but please! Paraphrasing Bill above, 2000 was Gore's campaign to lose; and he did. Admittedly he had help from Donna Brazile and all of the professional Democrat advisers, the people who selected his suits, his karma expert, etc. Probably a great guy, talented; but never President after 2000. We can reasonably blame Gore and his campaign for George Bush.

Besides, Bubba and HRC have their people in positions of power in the party. Every Democrat not named Clinton is going to have to face that. Terry Mc Auliffe became head of the DNC because two people wanted him there. He would have had to be dumb to not staff as many positions as he could with Clintonites; and I haven't heard of any purges by Dean yet.

So how can people say Gore doesn't have a chance, but Guiliani does? Guiliani didn't even show up for the Republican Southern Leadership Conference, which was a smart choice. What's he going to say when the first conservative asks him why he moved in with two gay men when his wife threw him out for serial adultery?

And the more people see of John McCain, the less they're going to like him. He's a liar and a hypocrite. Everything he is doing now--to try to capture the moron vote--is wiping out whatever credibility he ever had. He's even broken campaign finance laws that he wrote. A digusting panderer, worse than Hillary.

Gore is the real thing. Competent, smart, sincere. And something else -- right now we seem to have entered a phase of accelerated global weather change, due to a positive feedback loop [look at the freak storms, droughts, wildfires, polar ice sheet melting]. These things happen, but never this severe or all at once. Gore is the only candidate who knows anything at all about what we will need to do to survive the financial damage. The insurance industry has already been hit hard.

And I agree heartily with Keemuna. Democrats need to stop internalizing Republican's stereotypes of them. Kerry was no more a flipflopper than any other politician. And Gore is no more boring than a village idiot like Bush.

If Americans voted on serious issues, Gore would be a shoe-in. He'd be a very good president. But he apparently fails the "guy at the bar" test.

Pretty much no-one in US politics was consistent in their opposition to the Iraq war, but Gore came closer than most. He never supported unilateral invasion without a UN resolution, and no-one can pretend he did.

Gore has the balls to say what he thinks. He's the only Dem outside the left-wing who boasts that quality.

The first question is not who can beat McCain, who faces hurdles within his own party that may prove insurmountable.
It's who can stop the runaway Hilary from hijacking the party with her Republican-lite agenda.

The only way Gore run's is if there is a draft. He won't embarass himself and trek through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to be steamrolled by Hillary's juggernaut unless he has a semblance of a chance or there is a draft for him to enter the race.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Giuliani - forgive me - has a foreign name. That will keep him from getting elected.

Hillary's a woman, and let's face it, she's scary. She is unelectable in the end.

I think integrity and character (or perception thereof) is the most critical issue for voters. People don't want a liar in the White House. Al Gore has integrity to spare, even if you don't agree with everything he says. Not to mention, he actually DID something for the victims of Katrina.

As far as the flip-flopping charges: when are Democrats going to stop playing into the Republicans hand on this? The opposite of flipflopping = the marriage to failure. Stay the course = stay a loser. Say it already.

Gore has the experience and wisdom we need in the White House. I hope he will run and do us all a favor.

Gore and Warner are the only two Democrats who have a real chance in 2008.

He needs to lose weight, get back in shape, and lose his daughter as his primary political advisor. He also needs to explain what he's been doing for the past six years. If he does that effectively, I'd consider voting for him again.

2008 is John McCain's to lose. As a life-long Democrat, I must face the fact that no national Democratic figure has a chance against either McCain or Giuliani. I wish I could say otherwise, but the facts are what they are.

Also, to finish the point I made in my last post, if we elected the person who could best govern rather than campaign (two totally different things) than our country and the world as a whole would be in much better shape.

I agree with the first poster regarding former Vice President Al Gore's decency. He is definitely a "mensch" to use the Yiddish word. People need to recognize a problem of their own making. They elect the candidate who has the best campaign rather than the one who would make the best President. If we just voted for who would be best to lead our nation into the future, Mr. Gore would win easily, I think.

With the exception of Bill’s extra curricular activity, most people think of the Clinton years as good years. If Gore ran on those years with Clinton, he might be a candidate to be reckoned with.

Expect no endorsement from Bill with HRC in the race.

Often presidential politics are fascinating for the story alone.

I encourage Al Gore to enter this race. Imagine this guy running roughshod out there -- the man no one thinks has a chance. His popular vote win was abandoned by the party faithful a few months after W. took office. Already tongues stopped wagging in the guy's favor. As clueless Joe's ran around saying let's try someone new -- only to run a man who ran for president in 1988.

When a pol is that far out of the race -- as many former Gore loyalists like to claim of Al -- that pol may get the impression he has nothing to lose and be the giant killer who takes down the Hillary machine (whether in favor of himself or a rising governor who takes advantage of the two former Clintonite's overall damage.)

Whatever happens 08 looks interesting as hell. America's Mayor. Will he or won't he? Can McCain dodge far right and secure the nomination? Is George Allen anyone after he tanked for homegrown southern favorite Bill Frist (a man who seemed tapped) ... Who is Mike Huckabee? Can another Arkansas governor end up leading a national ticket? And whatever happed to John Edwards. There is a lot of talent in the field. May the best man or woman win.

Al, please run in 2008...it'll guarantee yet another Republican victory. Please run and do your country an important favor. It's the least you can do to make up for your humiliating plung into lunacy over the past few years.

Who are these "party insiders?" The only place this is a hot topic is here.

Where does Gore get his money from? Every candidate besides Bayh, Warner and HRC (those that can fund raise themselves and have money on-hand already)are going to get internet money ala Dean/Clark. It's like the leprachaun's pot o' gold.

Richardson/Bayh/Warner/Vilsack in some combination

Richardson/Bayh
Warner/Vilsack or Bayh
Bayh/Vilsack

Obama not ready yet.

Not again!

Talking about Gore and Giuiliani is fun, but I'd love to see you do your pros & cons analysis of the top-tier candidates...

Yeah my dad's gonna run for president again! Do you have any idea how much 'tang I'm gonna score? Wow! I'm going to invite Snoop Dogg to the inauguration for sure. We're going to have a sick party in the WH!! Whut Whuuuuut!!?? Gin-n-Juice!!! All the hos in tha house show me your....

I think highly of Al Gore and believe from the bottom of my heart that this country would have been far better off under a Gore presidency than under Bush.

But.....Al Gore's chances came and went 6 years ago. I would prefer a candidate that doesn't make people roll their eyes and exclaim, "Oh gawd, not AGAIN". (And yes, I'm including Hillary here)

I like Richardson/Obama, Bobby W-C. I also like Warner/Obama. I'd like to see Obama as the VP candidate.

No one is more opposed to Bush than me, but I must say in 2000 Gore ran from Clinton and then blamed Clinton for losing - Gore could not even carry his own state -

Kerry lost because he lacked the back bone to defend himself from the dispicable Swift Boat Veterans.

The Democrats can do better - and must do better - my ticket remains Richardson/Obama

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

I'm ready to back another Gore run if he can be convinced of doing it. I have a sneaking suspicion that Gore is playing this for a campaign to draft him into the race, similar to Wesley Clark in 2004. With that, coupled with a Dean-line online donation campaign, Gore could be a tremendous threat to the media-appointed front-runner.

You got Warner, Bayh, Feingold, Vilsack, Edwards, Clark, and perhaps Clinton.

Gore should stay retired.

The old problems with Gore remain. Chris has rightly suggested that if Gore runs he will portray himself as having consistently opposed the Iraq War. But this is, yet again, Gore rewriting his own résumé. In 2002 he was strongly implying that he not only favored removing Saddam from power said he felt let down by Bush (41)'s "hasty departure from the battlefield". He stopped short of saying he had favored invasion of Iraq in 1991, but strongly, and deliberately, implied it. In fact he had spoken against the idea at the time.

Quentin Langley
Editor, www.quentinlangley.net
For more details on Gore's shifting position on Iraq, see http://www.quentinlangley.net/blog.php?id=160

Moran isn't exactly the kind of politician Gore wants endorsing him. We all know Moran's penchant for saying and doing things that seriously blur the line of ethics (accosting an 8-year-old black boy, taking money from the makers of Claritin just a few days before voting for a bill in their favor, saying that if it were not for the Jewish community we wouldn't be going to war with Iraq, etc.).

If Gore's to be a serious candidate for 2008, he needs the heavy hitters around the country coming out for him. Not Moran, who so enraged a dozen members of his own party that they called on him to resign after his March 2003 comments and who was stripped of his leadership post by Nancy Pelosi.

He is absolutely the finest man and the comeback would make for a great story, but he would need a lot more love from the media and there seems little chance of his role as the "wooden" "boring" candidate changing; his dynamic and occassional analyses on the present administration notwithstanding. Why would someone of such decency want that crazy job anyway?