With all the talk of Fred Thompson running or not running in the previous two weeks, it's tough not to forget about The Other Man From Tennessee, former Vice President Al Gore.

Well, apparently some people haven't forgotten:

Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton's deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.

But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop. [...]

The former aide, who has himself signed up with Sen Edwards, said: "The question is: where have all the Kerry people gone? The answer for most of them is nowhere. Now ask yourself why."

Al Gore is like that ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend with whom things came so close to working out but ultimately fell apart. This is made all the more tragic if you feel that the bozo that came after wasn't worth your time. Gore was loyal, sturdy, and an all around good guy. What didn't he have that the other dude did? Oh, right, that flare. Was that really important? You're single, you're lonely, and you're given the opportunity to try again. You're waiting at the table for him to show up and you're wondering whether you'll fall in love with him the second he enters the door or whether you will remember all of the things that lead you to break it off with him in the first place.

Really, what was so bad about Al Gore? It's hard to remember. He was stiff, he was dorky, he was wooden, he was supposedly an inveterate liar but really wasn't. But he also came across as earnest, good-natured and smart. He was the kind of guy you could trust to escort your daughter, which his former boss wasn't, and he was the kind of guy that you could trust to sit your house, which his opponent in the eyes of many has turned out not to be. I wonder if the nation isn't that ex-girlfriend, looking at Gore and wondering what might not have been had it not been for the superficiality of bad decisions.

This leaves Gore with an absolutely huge opportunity. The kind that a bland politician with a lack of people skills rarely ever gets. Gore's campaign almost writes itself.

Al Gore: A serious man for serious times.

He's willing to let bygones be bygones. He's not going to say "I told you so." He doesn't have to. All he has to do is be there. Be the steady, reliable guy coming to the high school reunion years after being stood up at the prom. The mistakes this country made by standing him up are utterly apparent. We're at war, the economy is perpetually on the rocks, health care costs spiral out of control, environmental degradation runs rambant, the middle class is getting squeezed from every direction. We chose Bush and when our choice eventually became clear be bowed out, into the shadows, and let life go on without him. But now he's back. Things are bad in ways they wouldn't have been bad if we'd have chosen him in the first place.

I disagree with this assessment of Al Gore in a number of ways. Yet it is compelling on so many different levels that it's hard not to breathe in the intoxicants even if you're not drinking from the cup. Gore appears in many ways to be exactly what this country needs right now in the same way that Bush seemed like what the country needed in 2000. Maybe the results will be better or maybe they'll be worse. But it's his time in a way that it wasn't in 2000 or 2004.

At the same time, Gore was stood up at the prom for a reason. He was at times insufferable. He came across as opportunistic (though compared to Kerry it's easier to overlook now). And whether it was true or not the Republicans were able to paint him as a phony who wore a different mask for each occasion and whose face you never really saw. If they did it before, they did it again. In fact, they have one more reinvention of Al Gore to point to in order to back up their theory. It's possible that a renewed introduction between Al Gore and America will fall apart again because maybe the two were never really all that compatible to begin with. And yet, so close.

On a more practical level, the major Democratic candidates fall into two categories: inexperienced potential lightweights and the heavyweight with a lot of baggage. John Edwards has six years in the senate under his belt and a VP campaign and that's about it. Barack Obama makes Edwards look experienced by comparison. Maybe they'll be able to overcome it because they've "got it". But stick them on a stage with John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or even Fred Thompson, and they'll look lighter by comparison. As GWB proved that's not an insurmountable handicap, but I'm not sure how eager the country is to elect the next President Bush. As for the heavyweight Hillary Clinton, whose air of invincibility has been punctured and who has yet to find a real rationale for running or getting people to vote for her.

And in comes Al Gore. His rationale is clear if unspoken: vindication, a return to competent leadership, honesty, and integrity. Save America, save the planet. And unlike Edwards and Obama he doesn't even have to say these things to say them. Stand him next to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and he will be the pinnacle of sanity and the promise of a return to normalcy. Stand him next to Fred Thompson and he will exemplify the experience that Thompson can only convincingly convey.

If I were to name the Democrat that I fear the most, it's Al Gore. Without hesitation.

At the same time, if I were in Gore's inner circle I'd tell him not to run. Despite all of his strength and the convergence of moods that bode so well for him almost two years from now, his chances of becoming president are still way less than 50%. It's more than just possible that the people that have fallen in love with him will remember why they never truly loved him the first time around. Right now in the eyes of many he was the guy wronged by an arcane system and suspicious election practices. He loses again and he'll be seen by everyone as a two-time loser. Mostly, though, he seems to have found a piece that will more likely than not unravel if he runs again, whether he wins or loses.

But I guess it's just that hard to come so close to something and not give it your all. Like Fred Thompson, even though he has more to lose than he has a chance of winning, if given the opportunity to serve this country in the greatest possible capacity, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to pass that up.