Sorry, Mr. Lloyd...

By your comments, you reveal yourself as unable to accept the possibility of anyone learning from experience. If Al Gore is the same naively optimistic Al Gore as he was in late 2000, I'd be greatly surprised.

The point is that Al Gore was outmaneuvered and outfought by his domestic opponents in the GOP; he lost -- and it was a largely self-inflicted loss.

The love-in on Gore occurred when he was safely out of the political running; should he honestly try to get back into the game, huffing on the vapors of fleeting favor, he's going to get shredded the minute he steps back in. An Adlai Stevenson wannabe.

Can you learn from experience? That's probably the more important question, if you really think Gore's the one. Your warning cries about polarization and cleaving to the "center" make me wonder where you've been these past few years -- the GOP polarization of politics was because the shellshocked Democrats were busy trying to accommodate them, and we listed badly to the right because of it.

Had more Democrats (Hillary, hello?) staked out a strong position to the actual left (versus, say, center-right, where most of them feebly resided, and where way too many of them reside today), odds are we'd be in a better position than we currently are. Like it or not (and I like it; maybe you don't), the majority of Americans actually agree with Democratic positions on issues, if only the Democrats had the political courage to run with them, instead of hunkering down in the Beltway, relying on the wrong-headed wisdom of campaign advisors.

The GOP and the Dems are in opposite positions -- the GOP runs hard for their right wing, even though doing so alienates them from the majority (and it worked for them for a long time, despite alienating the majority); the Democrats run away from their left wing, even though doing so alienates them from the majority (and it has consistently failed for them -- they'd have swept more seats in 2006).

If the Democrats ran to the actual left (instead of Lloydian relative left, e.g., not quite as right-wing as the GOP; hell, I'd settle for center-left, which would feel radical, compared to what we have right now), they'd energize the majority of voters, and bring more into the process.

We don't need more Democrats in name only (DINOs) leading the Democrats; that's loser strategy, and lets the Republicans set the tone and the overall agenda. So long as DINOs and their GOP twins call the tune, people can still declare there's no difference between the parties -- it was exactly THAT problem that weakened Gore's already tepid run in 2000.

The Democrats need to stand strong for something, rather than faltering weakly for everything. I don't believe there is a moderate mandate out there -- I mean, how do you moderate what the Bush League have done to this country? There needs to be far more imaginative action if the Democrats want to stand apart from the Republicans, and offer a real and meaningful choice to voters.

I'm glad that Al Gore popularized environmentalism -- but that his stance appears strong is only because of the absolute weakness of most American politicians on environmental issues, rather than testament to Al Gore's sagacity or strength as a candidate. Don't fall into the usual liberal trap of mistaking weakness for strength.

I hope Gore is prudent enough to stay in retirement. He can do far more from that position than as a candidate.

But the question is, will either Bush or Gonzales care?

I think their conduct to date more than shows how little they'll care about this. I doubt any symbolic vote would move them an inch; Bush's popularity is already in the gutter, and he probably has more to lose by cutting Gonzales loose than by keeping a corrupt Attorney General on board to aid and abet this administration's criminality. He's the Consiglieri, after all. If nothing else, he will (as others have pointed out) draw attention from the whole NSA wiretap illegality, and can draw heat from Bush and Cheney and Rove, the unholy trinity of the Bush League.

What will be useful, however, is for voters to note how their respective Congresspeople vote on this, and to take into account those votes in 2008. And maybe to write their representatives and express their dissatisfaction, let the Beltway Brigands know that people are paying attention.