I guess you could describe me as one of those "internet-savvy Moveon.org activists", although I'm not an active Moveon.org member. I have to admit I've been very impressed with the "new" Al Gore ever since he delivered one of the strongest critiques of going to war in Iraq back in late 2002 - before Congress voted on the Iraq war resolution.

I didn't vote for Gore in 2000. The resurgence of progressive activism and the rise of the netroots brought me back to the Democratic Party, from which I had been driven away by years of triangulation. I've been strongly leaning toward Russ Feingold as my 2008 favorite for over a year now, but Al Gore keeps looking better and better.

I have to admit that I've been very inspired by Gore's crusade against the blinders our society wears to ignore both the serious threat posed by global warming and the steps we can take as a society to pull ourselves back from the brink. Not only has Al Gore has been out front on the issues make me a Feingold supporter (Iraq, domestic spying), but he has worked tirelessly to push global warming back into our national conversation. He's earned my vote, if he'll run. I hope he picks Russ Feingold as his running mate (and I hope Russ accepts).

Your kidding, right? We are at war with a barbaric religion that wants to wipe us out right now, and Gore is fantazying about global warming. At least Hillary recognizes the immediate danger from fanatical nut cases.

Gore supporters should recognize a sore loser. The Democrat Party needs someone that takes the security of the nation as the highest priority. After all, isn't that what they swear to do when they take the oath of office? Right now it appears that Gore and Feingold want to appologize for the US as being the bad guy. Get real.

Gore has flip flops on his record that would make John Kerry blush. plus, he's a typical democrat wussy-boy on matters of national security.

Hey, bomb our barracks? No response. Bomb our embassy? Really, it doesn't matter. Bomb the World Trade Center? Maybe we can put someone on trial or something. Blow up the USS Cole? Hey, it's just a ship and a few sailors! Offer Osama on a silver platter? NO THANKS!

Go grow a beard and cry about my SUV, Al.

The only way to stop the "nut cases" from doing anything is to take away their money, ie., stop subsidizing Saudi Arabia and the rest of the billionaire oil-sheik "nut cases" who support these guys.

So uh, how's Halliburton , ie., Dick Cheney and cronies, doing these days?

Even if his wife IS responsible for those silly warning labels on CDs that contain "explicit lyrics," even if he ran a very poor campaign in 2000 and didn't seem to go all the way in contesting the election, and even if you can blame him for any of Clinton's mis-steps in office...

...I'd still vote for Gore in a heartbeat in 2008. I think he's the right man for the job, at the right time. Also, I voted for Nader in 2000 (in Oregon, not Florida; nobody can claim that it actually mattered), so I'd like to have a chance to vote for Gore for the first time.

Plus, I remember seeing him on public television int he early 90s. He was in a greenhouse with a shovel full of dirt:

Question from the host of the TV Show: "Al Gore! Surprise seeing you here. What are you doing?"

Al Gore: "Well, I'm a politician. I'm slinging mud."

Ya know, the guy actually DOES have a sense of humor under there, he just likes to deadpan in his delivery style...

cheers, ~Garlynn

Kitty C - we are at war with a barbaric religion who wants to see us convert or die. It's called fundamentalist Christianity.

If Al Gore has grown some gonads since 2000, I'd welcome him. But remember, the Republic Party will lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to keep power.

If you want to campaign for President, Al, you better be prepared to go at the Republic Party tooth and nail - whether it's making sure there are enough voting machines in Blue areas of Ohio, Nevada, Florida, and other swing states, or sending sheriff's deputies to shoot pepper spray and rubber bullets at Republic Party rent-a-riots disrupting vote counting, or even start whispering campaigns like Karl Rove did against John McCain.

Having supported Gore in 1988 as well as 2000, I am one who has come to a sad conclusion: Gore is a better speaker when he isn't running for president than when he is!

Time for new blood--someone who has not been the nominee for president before. I thought Edwards did a good job as VP candidate and as presidential candidate before that---more genuine than Kerry and Gore. I like Wes Clark. There may be some Governors in the mix somewhere, not to mention Biden or some other Senator. And about Hillary? No, I don't believe she has all the delegates sewn up before the decision is made on where to hold the convention. "Front runners" can stumble. Let's see her in a debate with those listed above and see how she does.

Hi Folks....

No NO No No NO NO NNONONONONO! and a thousand times more!!!No more southern Dems, no more Eastern Dems, no more mainstream, inside the beltway, recycled retreads. NO

Look for and develop libertarian democrats from the west.

The party needs to undergo a quantum shift in policy and in practice towards individual liberty, support for collective/community sized action and support for only a limited number of federal-scale activities. For example, we should work for national health insurance but against federal control of local schools.

Thanks

Bill Richardson.

Years ago, a client of mine said of her boyfriend (not in admiration), "He was born to be the assistant manager of whatever he does." I thought of that phrase a lot while watching Gore's surprisingly awful campaign in 2000.

I think he's a good man, but I'd really be surprised to see that he has it in him to step up and win the presidency. After all, that he managed to make 2000 close enough to steal was a remarkable act of self (and country) destruction. How could the generally-popular VP of a president with 60-percent-plus approval rating, with no personal skeletons of note, manage to run only a fraction of a percentage point ahead of a failed idiot son of a one-term president? By being incompetent when asked to run a campaign on his on, maybe? The Peter Principle at work?

I note that today's New York Times reports that his current popularity is lower than Bush's--down around 28%. Not many of the folks sitting around saying, "Oh, man--we really messed up in voting for Dubya" are also saying, "We should have voted for Al."

The only candidate the Repuppyicans would prefer to Hillary is Al Gore. They beat him with a weak governor (from TEXAS!) riding on weaker coattails (Bush 41). Since then, Al's made a name for himself as a wild eyed lib-rule: Rudy Giulli, Jeb (three-peat) Bush, or Nit-pick Romney would tear Gore into teeny tine pieces, and sprinkle him over their breakfast cereal like so much wheat germ.

Political baggage is not the same as experience.

"I note that today's New York Times reports that his current popularity is lower than Bush's--down around 28%. Not many of the folks sitting around saying, "Oh, man--we really messed up in voting for Dubya" are also saying, "We should have voted for Al.""

Yeah, but why is that? I don't think Al Gore is on most American's radar screens, to the extent Bush is, so I'd like to know more about why that number is so low before I just accept it as proof that Americans don't like Gore.

Remember the 2000 election? You know, the one where more Americans voted for Gore than any other candidate?

Bush - 50,456,002 Gore - 50,999,897 (pop. votes)

What has Gore done to fall to 28%?

I would certainly vote for Gore if he was nominated, but i do worry about his gonads. We'd certainly be better off if he hadn't caved in 2,000.

Does Clinton think she's "outfoxing" anyone by budding up with Murdoch? Why would a neocon lover like Murdoch be raising money for her? If she wins the nomination i guess I'll have to vote green.

I've been watching this with great interest and can't quite decide whether to support Gore or Hillary. I'm weighing the two and looking at their websites and such. Gore is a re-tread, whereas I think Hillary can artfully distract enough of the center to win an election. The Republicrats don't have anyone of substance to run and if there's one thing the Clinton's know how to do, it's run for office and get the money going to get the job done. I'm leaning toward Hillary at the moment because I think her agenda will go further, faster in terms of raising taxes on the wealthy/upper middle income to middle income group, and I don't see how the Progressive agenda can make much headway without dramatically raising taxes.We've got to find a way to put the brakes on the economy, level the economic playing field, and seriously increase unemployment/underemployment. But, maybe all this is just wishful thinking, I don't see what good either can do unless the Dems can take back either the Senate or the House. Another advantage of Hillary is that I think she can more artfully wrap herself in the cloak of Christianity while at the same time pursuing her anti-Christian agenda without so much as being noticed. She can easily fool the stupid Christian centerist who will vote for her because she's female. Of course the hat trick for either Hillary or Gore is to tank the stock market and then blame it on the Republicrats, but with luck, the market will tank before the election.

Dan wrote: ""I note that today's New York Times reports that his current popularity is lower than Bush's--down around 28%. Not many of the folks sitting around saying, "Oh, man--we really messed up in voting for Dubya" are also saying, "We should have voted for Al.""

Yeah, but why is that? I don't think Al Gore is on most American's radar screens, to the extent Bush is, so I'd like to know more about why that number is so low before I just accept it as proof that Americans don't like Gore."

I don't have any particular data on why Gore's standing is so low. But I don't know any reason to doubt that poll on the Gore question, especially since I don't doubt it on the Bush questions.

"I don't have any particular data on why Gore's standing is so low. But I don't know any reason to doubt that poll on the Gore question, especially since I don't doubt it on the Bush questions."

That logic doesn't necessarily follow. It's obvious why Bush's rating is in the toilet; Gore's not so much.

Not saying it's wrong, just that it doesn't tell the complete story.

I wasn't big on Gore in 2000, either. But he has been pretty consistently on the correct side of issues like war and climate. BUT! But anyone can do that when they're not in office, so, la-dee-da to his "progressive" spirit since leaving office. I wonder how he'd vote in those years.

The Democrat that will vote for a real solution to Peak Oil (and thus also climate collapse) in 2008 will get my vote. On the other hand, if the party puts someone on the ballot that will only promise to lower pump prices, then I'll fling my money and time and voice and vote to the Greens again.

I'm always reluctant to vote Dem instead of Green. Still, I hope by 2008 Al Gore will be brave enough to talk about Peak Oil, and I hope he'll be even braver by offering real solutions, cuz he'd be the first Dem Prez candidate that'd pull my vote out of the Pacific Green Party slot.

Run Al Run!

Dan wrote:

""I don't have any particular data on why Gore's standing is so low. But I don't know any reason to doubt that poll on the Gore question, especially since I don't doubt it on the Bush questions."

"That logic doesn't necessarily follow. It's obvious why Bush's rating is in the toilet; Gore's not so much."

Actually, the logic does follow. The same sample, same samplers, same form of question, and same methods were used for both sets of numbers. If they're credible, they're credible.

Being able to explain Bush's numbers more readily than Gore's is beside the point. To know that something is the case does not require knowing why it's the case. So yeah, we have more likely explanations of Bush's numbers than of Gore's--but the numbers come from the same source.

I agree with Steve Novak about Hillary and think that she has 0 cahnce of winning the general election. Ditto for Kerry, and how we nomianted someone from MASS still boggles my mind. My favorite, Biden, gave a great speech in SC last week and really has the fire in the belly, but he is still a northern Senator who only thinks he has a chance int he south. Gore is a southernor who lost every southern state, plus Ohio, plus West Virigina, plus Missouri. Those are states we have to win. I think Warner has a shot at them, and maybe Edwards, Clark or Bayh. Gore has had his chance, and failed to maintain the national base that CLinton did , even if he did win the popular vote. I admire Al Gore, but don't think he would be our stongest candidate.

The Wall Street Journal comments that Senator Clinton may not be a good candidate "because she is a polarizing figure to many voters" -- Grant Schott says, "I agree with Steve Novak about Hillary and think that she has 0 [chance] of winning the general election."

Why are progressives or the Dems afraid of someone who is a strong candidate? We shouldn't be searching for a please-everyone candidate, rather we should be looking for one who will advance what we believe is important. And if the last presidential election was any indication, it is certainly possible to have an extremely polarizing figure when a national election. (And, for my part, President George W. is quite more polarizing than Senator Clinton.) Now I know a lot will shake out in the months to come, but I don't think we should automatically draw conclusions against Senator Clinton's chances in a general election. A Clinton/Richardson ticket, for instance, would bring together some ready-made constituencies and generate enthusiastic support on the east coast as well as on the west coast. What better way to unite the country!

The main trouble with Clinton is that she is not a progressive at all. She is a pro-war, corporatist free trader just like the Bushies. She uses her pro-choice base the same way the Bushies use their pro-life base. That's why she has the support of neocon media magnate Murdoch. If she is the Dem candidate, the corporatists have both parties covered.

Karl sez: We'd certainly be better off if he hadn't caved in 2,000.

Does Clinton think she's "outfoxing" anyone by budding up with Murdoch? Why would a neocon lover like Murdoch be raising money for her?

Gore caved in 2000? Here I remembered he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The error he made was actually to let politics overwhelm idealism and fight for recounts in the counties that looked best for him instead of in every precinct in Florida.

Rupert's backing Hillary, I'm told, for the same reason he backed Blair -- because his conservative-loving streak is a feeble trickle beside the torrent of his power-loving streak. He sees a power shift in the offing and cheerfully abandons his old buddies.

On the Gore question, I saw him and Clinton speak at a joint appearance at OMSI during the 1996 campaign. Gore was spellbinding in demolishing what was then the Rs' main talking point, that taxes are "your money" and that you can spend "your money" best. I could never see the stereotype of him as wooden after that.

Somebody ought to start booking him on Letterman and Jon Stewart.

Suzii observed, (referring to Gore...The error he made was actually to let politics overwhelm idealism and fight for recounts in the counties that looked best for him instead of in every precinct in Florida

Suzii nailed it: I couldn't agree more. It's worth noting those same three heavily Democratic counties had voted in favor of Gore in greater proportion than there were registered Democrats in the counties (meaning he received crossover votes from other parties), yet he still demanded a recount exclusively in those three counties.

That's right kids, he won those three counties by a landslide, but figured they would be the fertile ground for ballot mining and legal challenges given the overwhelming preponderence of registered Democrats (many of them elderly) in those counties. Count every vote my ASS!

<h2>That was the day I made up my mind to register as a Republican. Thanks Albert!</h2>