There are some obvious similarities between the elections of 1960 and 2000. In both cases the vice President narrowly lost the election believing that he had won (although it seems clear that Gore really did win and Nixon didn't).

Now let's look at the "wilderness years," the 60s for Nixon and the 00s for Gore. Again, in both instances some considered them to be political has-beens and unelectable. Nixon especially had it hard as he was given the additional blow of losing the '62 Gubernatorial race in California.

Still, Nixon went on to became the GOP front-runner, and of course win the presidency in '68.

If Al Gore wants to run in '08, he is best served by looking at Nixon. What did he do to turn his fortunes around?

In part, Nixon ran on a platform of restoring "law and order," a message that hit a chord with "the silent majority." The American public was, by and large, tired of the quagmire in Vietnam and domestic unrest.

Fast forward to 2008--substitute Iraq for Vietnam and corruption in Washington for domestic unrest. These two issues, Iraq and corruption in Washington, are two issues that are of great concern to Americans, if not the greatest concern. If Al Gore can rally the American people around the idea that he can restore "law and order" in Washington, as well as fix the mess in Iraq, he could possibly win this thing.

Also, Gore seems poised to make a strong comeback. Much like middle-America yearned for the innocent 50s of Ike/Nixon, as we head into the late '00s, people might start to feel nostalgia for the days of Clinton/Gore. Gore hasn't done anything to tarnish his image/political capital since he's left, in fact, he's probably only gained momentum. His latest film and talk show appearances have shown Gore to be far more human and likable than he was during the Clinton years.

In addition, the Dems feel (rightfully so) that they were screwed and cheated out of the '00 election. A Gore Presidency can be seen as a rallying call, a way to right the wrong of '00.

Al Gore, if you are reading this, take a page from Tricky Dick.

I think everything is stacking up right for Gore this time around.

But the wild card is still whether or not he'll run . . . <_<

there are other similarities too

Nixon was not liked by some in the party

Nixon was an incredibly smart person

Nixon was sabatoged by those within for ulterior motives on the other parts

Nixon could have taken JFK to court challenging the election, and then taken it further, but Nixon believed in our constitution and like Gore after the USSC ruling
did not want to have a Constitutional Crisis on his hand

There are so many scenerios between 1960 and 1968 elections it is eerie

Hillary if she is to be beaten, it will be because of her stand on the war, almost like Johnson
Feingold is similiar to Eugene McCarthy-anti war, but when came time for nominee, nowhere in the pack
Obama could be Bobby
And Al Gore would be Nixon

although who is Hubert Humphrey in the mix?

Although the interesting thing about HHH is that he did not win one primary at all, and was the nominee if my old memory serves me correct (I did not look it up).

There are more similarities btw Nixon & Bush: lies, quagmire of war,
abuse of power, spying on political opponents, etc.

Republicans talk about the law- Democrats live by it!

Be prepared for the dirtiest campaign in history: Terror alerts, drumming
up of hatred for Hispanics, Muslims & other ethenics, a total THEM against US
drive. Catch phrase" A clash of civilations"

The Blame Game: Liberals, multiculturalists, the Politically Correct, THE NY TIMES
( Peter King, conservative lawmaker called the paper "pompous, arrogant, and more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people. Ann Coulter says that" the safest place for Osama bin Laden is in The New York Times building...Our military can handle the savages. It's the traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home that's the problem."
Oh and secularists and of course Environmentalists making Al Gore and supporters enemy #1 :unsure:

True. But, there is something that wasn't around in 1960 and 1968... the internet. Todays politics are much different than politics of the past. For an example, negativity can be much more far spread than in the past.