I am still trying to figure this one out.

So, admittedly I am a registered Republican, although I have never voted for either Bush. I don’t vote along party lines anyway and the only time I find myself getting drawn into the partisan web is when I am confronted by some idiot who wants to make blanket statements about either party (you know the ones that go, those -fill in the party- are all...).

I haven’t been too happy with the course our country has taken over the last bunch of years. The guy in office spends like a drunken sailor on leave (too concerned about spending all his money and then some), his priorities are totally askew (see response to the Terry Shiavo thing versus response to Katrina) and in general he has made a poor go of it. Still he amazingly won reelection somehow but, was it more a matter of people voting for him as much as it was people not being happy with the other guy?

So, there are a bunch of people already jockeying for position to run in ’08 knowing there won’t be an incumbent of any kind to face. I took a quick look over at this site which has the info from all the polls on potential democratic candidates. The thing I find amazing... no remarkable, is the one person I think could win isn’t considered a serious candidate at this point!

That person has been an elegant, vocal opponent of the current administration over the past two terms. The person’s stature has only managed to grow in the ensuing years. It is a person who gave a speech including these jewels:

But whether you agree with that conclusion or not, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican — or an Independent, a Libertarian, a Green or a Mugwump — you’ve got a big stake in making sure that Representative Democracy works the way it is supposed to. And today, it just isn’t working very well. We all need to figure out how to fix it because we simply cannot keep on making such bad decisions on the basis of false impressions and mistaken assumptions.

Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future — allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.

That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I’ve even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.

This past week I managed to catch this movie and it only confirmed what I previously thought, this person should be considered as the lead candidate for ’08.

How a party can ignore a person who won the popular vote, has proven to be an intelligent and thoughtful speaker, shows dedication and commitment that transcends political party or interest is just astounding! Alright, if you clicked through on some of the links, you know I’m talking about Al Gore. Gore is untarnished by any association to the legacy of the Clinton years (in a way Hillary is not). He’s the kind of candidate who could seriously garner enough crossover votes to take the White House. Hell, the guy won once already! (I know some out there are going to go apoplectic over that one) So, why isn’t there some serious discussion about drafting him as candidate? I still don’t understand why he didn’t run in ’04 because I would’ve voted for him then.

Anyone care to explain that one?