That would be Al Gore vs. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
A lot of names are out there — John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, and Wesley Clark, among others — but at The New Republic Ryan Lizza argues that “Gore may be the only Democrat who can beat Hillary Clinton”.
It’s an interesting and at times persuasive argument. I supported Gore in 2000, and I’ve always generally liked him, but I’m just not sure if the pieces will fall into place for another run at the White House.
Unfortunately, Lizza’s piece is available by subscription only. However, I quote from it extensively and add some additional commentary in my latest post at The Reaction.
Feel free to add your comments, either there or here. I’m not sure what to make of Gore’s possible return to politics, but, given what lightning rods both he and Hillary are, I’d certainly like to know who Democrats think their best candidate would be, who Republicans would be most concerned to face in 2008, and how moderates and independents respond to Gore, who seems to have positioned himself on the anti-war left even as his credentials seem to place him more in the middle (which is precisely why he could win the nomination).