Al Bleeping Gore?

As someone who lives in California, I was thrilled with our own election results yesterday, and even more thrilled to realize it was indicative, largely, of the results around the country. I'd like to temper people's expectations by stating that Kaine and Corzine essentially kept the governorships for their states, but I do realize the bigger significance of both of their victories, and we should relish it.

However, that being said...I've read some things, notably at Daily Kos in kos' diary 2008: Warner's Rising Stock that make me roll my eyes. In discussing Warner's chances for a 2008 nomination for President - something I think is possible though I know little about him - people also talk about the prospective chances of Al Gore.

Look, I like Al Gore. I proudly voted for him, and I know that all evidence points to the fact that he actually won in 2000. Many of the folks on this site use this as one reason why he could win in 2008.

It's just never, ever going to happen.

First, one needs to disassociate the Al Gore of 2005 from their head. The mainstream voter remembers him as a Vice President and a failed Presidential candidate. They remember - incorrectly, but they remember it nonetheless - that he claimed to invent the internet. I hear this repeated, to this day, on talk radio. Even sports-talk radio. That's nothing that's easily dismissed.

Do you really remember the 2000 version of Gore, by the way? So bland he made John Kerry look vivid. The guy who put Joe Lieberman on his ticket? (I mean, that should DQ him automatically.) So similar to the George W. Bush platform that Ralph Nader got millions of votes because folks felt like there was no difference between Bush and Gore. This is the Al Gore the voters who count remember. This is the Al Gore who they see, and what they see is a loser.

If they've paid any attention to the new Al Gore - the one we like, the one with passion and a fire in his belly - they see his beard, they hear his vitriol, and they think...wacko. Is it fair? No. But it's reality.

More to the point, the Democrats should be running in 2008 as a party of CHANGE. Al Gore doesn't represent that, at least not to the mainstream, independent voters so critical to any Democrats chances of winning.

Also, he doesn't seem to have any interest in running.

Don't even get me started about Hillary Clinton, by the way. Not only will she never win - what candidate has started a campaign with so much hatred in the populace? - but she clearly doesn't represent change for America.

I firmly believe that if the Democrats want to effect change, they have to win first. Issue voters are great, but their candidates have to win first. That's why it's good to see someone like Tim Kaine win in Virginia. It's why people out of the beltway, like Wes Clark, Mark Warner or Bill Richardson, make good potential candidates. If the best we can do is recycle an old candidate, we aren't offering new ideas, and we aren't doing anyone any favors.