*Democrats.

Your assumption that Gore “lost” the election is IMHO flawed. My sense is that Gore is a good man who was handled badly by his advisors. His big sin was inconsistency in the debates. Bush was the same guy in all 3 debates and we saw 3 different Gores.

He also never should have picked Lieberman for a running mate.

As bad as a candidate he might have been I believe he would have been a very good president. I’d love to see either one of the senators from Illinois or Russ Feingold. I’ve got no use for Hillary and I think Bill Richardson is a big phony. He did a terrible job as Secretary of Energy.

Maybe Martin Sheen will make a run….;)

Elliot

1.The economy was not booming in 2000. It was slowing down after March, in case you missed it.

2.Vice presidents do NOT get credit for the good things but get the blame for the bad things — even if they themselves had nothing to do with them.
This has been the case for a long time, this is why so few sitting veep could become president.

3.Gore had to start the campaign behind Bush in the polls by double-digit.
You cannot blame that on his campaign since he wasn’t even a candidate.
He was however Clinton’s veep. And half of the electorate was fed up with the Clinton/Gore administration — mostly because of the scandals.
Gore had to pay for them by starting his campaign with a huge deficit.
Still he managed to trun thing aroung — despite the most hostile press coverage in recent history and the fact that Bush outspent him 2-1.
You cannot do that if you are a bad candidate.
The election was Bush’s to lose — and he lost it at least among the voters.

4.A good presidential candidate is someone who would make a good president.
Hence Gore was a good candidate and Bush was not.
Gore’s agenda made sense Bush’s didn’t make any sense.
Nothing else matters.

I am no expert, but from what I can tell Gore has the right personality to win big in Canada. That is, if he tones down his right wing agenda…

Gordon