I have mixed feelings about Al Gore. He does have baggage, but so did Nixon when he ran for President 8 years later and won (after a certain war was going bad). I think I heard somewhere that every candidate bar Al Gore who won the popular vote eventually became President, regardless of whether they lost the electoral college in hat election (I'm not 100% if this is true). I do think it is somewhat possible, although I can understand people want to see someone new. Gore has the progressive/Dean/Fiengold supporters, the entertainment industry, a new passionate charisma, as well as the sophisticated gravitas, domestic and foriegn policy gravitas as House Representative, Senator, and Vice-President. I would prefer someone new, but I can't help but think he may have history on his side.
The only time I was rooting for Edwards was when the 2004 primary narrowed down to him and John Kerry. I thought with a Massachussets liberal with 20 years of Senate history and yet no motivation other than "I've been in Senate so long, its my turn to run for President", Edwards seemed like the best choice on top of the ticket. Now, though I think he's a stale choice, he doesn' thave the experience. He's a smiling face, charisma, and he tells good stories, but he doesn't have the credibility to tackle these issues. Notice he hasn't given a real opinion on the War on Iraq (I heard he mildly supported it during the 2004 campaign). Rumors where that if Edwards had run again for Senatehe'd have lost his election for being too liberal for his state. He doesn't have enough history to warrant another run.
Wesley Clark?
I don't get why people have a fetish over this guy. He was DRAFTED in 2004, and couldn't win more than..what...one or two states in the primary? People on the ground thought he was a boring campaigner. He is basically an opportunistic candidate. He had supported Bush at rallies previously before running. He was touted for a Independent campaign, but figured the Democratic campaign was the best shot. He came across as opportunistic. I don't know if he's a real Democrat in any sense. The only reason people like him is because of his military experience, which is the same reason people went for John Kerry. He's now a friggin Fox News analyst. You and I both know WE don't know where Clark really stands on issues or what he's passionate about, whether he would have initially supported the Iraq War in 2003, etc... Clark had his shot after being drafted. What more can you expect from him?
There's no way in hell I'd support triangulation Hillary Clinton. She's too Machiavellian for me.
Right now, I don't know who should run. Bill Richardson is interesting as Western governor with foriegn policy experience, but he seems more like a VP pick. Maybe Tom Vilsack....ehhh. I really don't know anymore.
EDIT: Guilliani will never make it out of the Republican primaries. Look what the primaries did to McCain, innuendos attacking his adopted child and such. What would they will do to a pro-choice, pro gay marriage (or at least pro civil union), divorced candidate like Guilliani. Plus, I was never fond of the guy, his reputaiton has been given a boost due to revisionism. Nobody would have wanted him to run again for Mayor before 2001 (he couldn't due to term limits).
McCain is the frontrunner in the GOP and he's successfully mended fences with the right to make a run. Despite my disappointment at McCain's reaching out to rightwingers, he hasn't done anything to suggest he'll cater to rightwingers after winning office or that he believes in the ideology of rightwingers. He's still the same straight talking guy who realizes he can't win primaries by being overly hostile to extremists. We'll see how that goes.
It's also WAAAAYYYY too early for Obama to even consider running. If he ran, he wouldn't have finished out one term. Just because you gave a great speech at a Democratic Convention doesn't mean you should be the friggin President of the United States. Let him build his resume first.