Just checking in, 3 months on, on my mid-May argument that Al Gore will be the next POTUS.
How is my prediction looking? Pretty darn good, I would say. Hillary gets smoother, more polished, and more "presidential." She's still a senator, though; she's still a Clinton; she's still a woman who was carried in to public life in her husband's baggage train; and she's still detested by huge swathes of the voting public. Obama looks more and more out of his depth—I think I see the smile beginning to falter. Edwards is a champion of the little guy who got stupendously rich suing doctors. Little guys like doctors. Gore for the nomination.
With the recent military successes in Iraq, there could be some kind of approximate stability there next summer, if someone could just please locate the elected "government." The history of the adventure is still a millstone round the GOP's neck, though. With health care costs through the roof (I'm paying 80 percent more than this time last year) and retiring boomers looking to their entitlements, I don't fancy the GOP's chances a bit, though I'll do my best to help.
It's the Dems; and the best candidate the dems have got is Al; and he knows it. The only question is whether he wants it. Back for another check in November.
I think Derb may be right about Gore, but Hillary will be formidable because she has a long train of barges filled with money. It is up to the Madison Ave. image makers. Can they re-make her into a lovable electable creature? Remember, it's not about who you are, but rather how successful the image makers are in defining a person they think you will vote for.