![](http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:RByVsBOaYnSjQM:www.floridaradioactive.com/laughriot/Gore_nam.jpg")
Posted on 05/13/2006 10:13:42 AM PDT by LdSentinal
He served two terms as vice president under a popular president. He then lost the presidency in a razor-thin election. After eight years, he repackaged himself and won the race for the White House and was re-elected in a major landslide.
That person was Richard Nixon. What Nixon did in 1968, Al Gore could repeat in 2008. Like Nixon, Gore faces a nation divided by an unpopular war. And like Nixon, Gore could transform anti-war anger and general public malaise into votes. Moreover, Democrats, moderate Republicans and independents are eager for a change, and Gore could emerge as a central agent for change in 2008.
A number of Americans strongly believe that Gore was unfairly robbed of the presidency in 2000. Two terms of George W. Bush have demonstrated that almost every point Gore raised in the 2000 election -- the dangers posed by global warming, the criticality of alternative fuel sources, the foolishness of tax breaks for the ultra-rich, the need for international diplomacy and consensus building, prudence in Supreme Court nominations, and a commitment to civil liberties -- were right on target.
Gore has learned the hard way about the extreme right-wing that now dominates the Republican Party. From being singled out for a special baggage search and frisking at Reagan National Airport in May 2002 to being one of the first to respond, on his own dime, to the plight of Hurricane Katrina victims on the Gulf Coast, Gore understands how the Bush administration and the Republican Party have destroyed the America in which the vast majority of citizens once believed.
And that gives Gore a unique perspective on matters of war and peace, civil liberties opposed to totalitarian rule, and a caring and service-oriented government as opposed to a detached bureaucracy only interested in lining the pockets of big business and political cronies.
Statesmanship is an earned attribute, and a Gore presidency would not require any on-the-job training on domestic or global policy making. The former vice president would be welcomed by a world eager to see America once again become a force for diplomacy and human rights and not a promoter of pre-emptive war and torture flights and secret gulags.
There is no doubt that Gore made a drastic mistake in selecting a neoconservative Democrat, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, as his running mate in 2000. Gore understands his mistake more than anyone else in America.
Gore, who has made no secret of his distaste for neoconservative policies at home and abroad, will be extra careful to ensure that his next running mate reflects the true values of the Democratic Party and not those of the pro-big business and neo-conservative aligned Democratic Leadership Council.
A Gore administration working with a Democratic Congress would reverse the dangerous actions incurred under eight years of right-wing misrule and deception. Gone would be the unitary executive and presidential signing statements, the weakening of Social Security and Medicare, and windfall profits for the oil industry.
Furthermore, Al Gore, more than any other potential candidate for the presidency, understands the importance of every proper vote being counted fairly and accurately. Who better could use the White House as a bully pulpit to demand fair and fraud-free elections? That is something that would benefit democracy and every political party and candidate.
Born into a famous Washington political family, Al Gore now "gets it" about being an outsider. It is rare to find someone running for president as an outsider with the "inside the Beltway" experience of Al Gore.
The Democratic Party has the opportunity to nominate a candidate who has the right stuff and someone who could go down in history as a rare statesman-president. The Democrats would be foolish not to recognize such potential in a candidate.
>>Don't dismiss him so quickly. Every Demo in the country will vote in a "revenge election" and if he runs with Clark he'll get some fence sitting Republicans who believe in strong national defense.<<
Yes. If Clark sits out the primaries and shows up as the Dem VP candidate that will strengthen the ticket. Kerry might have won last time with Clark.
Demoscum has to convince you they're someone they're not in order to win. They just can't go the whole campaign without showing their true colors.
No, he'll win this time. Out of all the Dem possibilities, he scares me the most. He will have the sympathy vote because he received the most popular votes in '02 and people are ready for a change after 8 years of Pubbies. I'd rather see Hitlery or Kerry be the Dem nominee. They could more easily be defeated.
He's as serious as Lurch can be,don't get between him and a microphone!
Oops! I meant 2000, NOT '02.
Kerry, in my opinion, is too much of a hybrid to ever get elected. He's a "type" that only exists in a few places in the country...
Pardon me while I get sick.
Do they have Arkancide in San Francisco?
>>Kerry, in my opinion, is too much of a hybrid to ever get elected. He's a "type" that only exists in a few places in the country...<<
Yep. I think he get much less support the second time around. As would Gore. And Hillary has huge negatives.
The nightmare for the GOP is a moderate Democratic governor together with Clark as VP.
Why does everyone seem to think Clark is some big asset. He never was popular with the demoscum and the so called moderates did't help him any, so wheres all this support coming from.
"No, he'll win this time"
I am sad to say that I have to agree with you.
Gore/Hillary! in '08.
Hallry! can serve out Gore's unfinished first term, then two of her own.
At least, that'd be her plan.
Would have to be a Southern state governor, no? I don't see that happening.
Hillary is a nice target, but I don't see any serious push. As for Kerry, he's the type of guy who gets appointed to posts. That he's been elected at all, I consider a fluke.
Lieberman may be right of center in the Democratic Party, but he is left of center overall, compared to the public at large. Does the author really think that having a second hard-left candidate on the ticket in 2000 would have gained more votes than the ticket would have lost?
One important difference between 1968 and 2008 is that Nixon didn't have to worry about Hillary.
Hillary needs support with election critical Global warming Science.
Who's better able to lend support than Al Gore, who's expertise besides Global Warming is a claim of fame by having invented the Internet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.