Partly because he's so good at what he does, but mostly, as New York's junior senator said in introducing him, because "he showed Democrats how to win again."

"He showed Democrats how to win again." Is this true? Let's just say it's unproven. Of course, he was the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term as president. But when he took office, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Within two years, the party had lost both chambers. They made some gains in subsequent elections (in the House in 1996-2000 and the Senate in 2000), but not enough to make up for the 1994 losses.

Unlike Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton failed to get his vice president elected to succeed him. Clinton's supporters argue that Al Gore hurt himself by denying Clinton a central role in the campaign. Clinton's detractors contend that Gore's association with Clinton hurt him among voters disgusted by Clinton's immorality and scandal. Although these are competing explanations, they are not contradictory , and I would say both are true. Both also provide evidence that Clinton's political talents are not transferable to other candidates.

Maybe some of the Clinton magic will rub off on John Kerry, and I will be proved wrong come November. So far, though, the post-Clinton Democrats have looked like the Chicago Bulls without Michael Jordan. :bad:

Gore did get elected in 2000. More people voted for him than Bush. And if it hadn't been for the illegal voter purge in Florida and the Supreme Court decision stopping the counting of legal votes, Gore would be President today.

So your entire premise is built on faulty logic and bogus facts.

Ok, let's take this item by item:

Gore did get elected in 2000. (Last time I checked GW Bush is still president.) More people voted for him than Bush. (And that is relevent how to our system, the Electoral College? )And if it hadn't been for the illegal voter purge in Florida (deemed illegal by who? )and the Supreme Court decision stopping the counting of legal votes, Gore would be President today.(Don't you mean the selective recounting of votes, which disenfranchises those not recounted.)

So your entire premise is built on faulty logic and bogus facts.(No, but thanks for playing! :D )

Yeah cause he stole it with the help of his dad's buddies on the Supreme Court.

He was still the choice of most Americans as well as most of the voters in Florida.

By the US Commission on Civil Rights and by Jeb Bush when he settled the lawsuit brought by the NAACP.

Oh please. Will you quit that piece of GOP propaganda. Everyone here knows it's not true.
The last order of the Florida Supreme Court was to count all the undervotes statewide. That's the count the USSC stopped.
The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000. No matter what standard for judging ballots is applied, Gore wins.

Certified by Katherine Harris
Gore Gain 0
Gore Deficit or Lead -537

Valid votes found after certification
Gore Gain +59
Gore Deficit or Lead -478

Correctly marked paper ballots
Gore Gain +493
Gore Deficit or Lead +15

Full punches
Gore Gain +100
Gore Deficit or Lead +115

Poorly marked paper ballot
Gore Gain +309
Gore Deficit or Lead +424

3-corner chads
Gore Gain -208
Gore Deficit or Lead +216

2-corner chads
Gore Gain -111
Gore Deficit or Lead +105

1-corner chads
Gore Gain -45
Gore Deficit or Lead +60

Dimples with sunlight
Gore Gain +88
Gore Deficit or Lead +148

Dimples
Gore Gain -41
Gore Deficit or Lead +107

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

Once again GOP lies and misinformation fall before the truth. You're hero Gobbels would be so disappointed in you.