tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6811719312494990925.post-66275912586253058912006-10-18T08:40:00.000-07:002006-10-18T08:40:00.000-07:00Good post, JLB. I agree with almost all of it. Putting aside questions of electability, Gore is hands down my top choice. He is easily the most qualified and deserving candidate. <br /><br />And let clarify that while I think Obama's time to run is now, that doesn't mean he would be my first choice. I just think, from his perspective, if he doesn't run in '08, he may not get a better chance. <br /><br />I would vote for Gore over Obama.<br /><br />That said, I do think a strong argument can be made that Obama would be a more formidable general election candidate than Gore. He is a more talented politician (perhaps the most talented since Clinton), and he has the rare ability among Democrats to command favorable media coverage. That's an advantage that can't be underestimated. Gore was unfairly savaged by the media in 1999-2000, and though his coverage has been more favorable lately, you can still see signs that our stuffy media elite don't like the guy. <br /><br />Gore's national poll numbers (among all voters, not just Democrats) aren't much better than Bush's. That could change if Gore were to run again, but it's not a good place to start. It would be an uphill battle. Obama, on the other hand, has very good national poll numbers. <br /><br />Choosing a candidate is half about qualifications and half about electability. Gore scores very highly on the qualifications meter, but Obama is much better positioned on electability. <br /><br />Perhaps the ideal ticket would by Gore/Obama.A.L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00427329141265835015noreply@blogger.com