I'd add that I'm sure that Gore has no desire to be anybody's VP, and I think that's smart. He's grown in stature and "gravitas", and settling for VP would be seen by a lot of people, not alone Gore himself, as an ignominious end.

I think that his hypothetical-but-likely stealth Presidential campaign is a response to what many think was his fatal mistake in 2000: Listening to his handlers and tailoring himself to suit focus groups. Gore's a nerd, when you get down to it; that's why he was often compared to a cigar-store Indian. He comes across flakey when he tries to gladhand like a used-car salesman, and he can't win that way. Seems to me, and probably to Big Al too, that he can win, or not, only by being himself, come hell or high water. If Americans respond to an approach based on ideas, fine; if not, oh well.

At one point in the conversation with my father, he said that he thought Gore's views on the environment were frightening to some people, and a political handicap; and that he'd have to change them to get elected. My views is that that just isn't in the cards. Gore's gone beyond pandering, and the attitude that comes across these days is that we either take him as he is or we don't. I like it. It's not quite like your idyllic vision of having to draft a good leader, but Gore's closer to it than any other serious possibility for President these days.

I think a more interesting question, then, is who would make a good VP for Gore?

Hillary is as symmetrically unlikely as Gore serving as her Veep. Obama seems bookishly compatible; Gore-Obama would be the Alpha Nerd ticket. If Gore joins the race as an independent after the conventions, and if Obama doesn't get the Democratic candidacy, he might accept running as Gore's VP.

We seem to be assuming that the custom of running both a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate on an indivisible ticket is set in stone. But as far as I can tell, it's not required by the Constitution. The 12th Amendment clearly describes separate tallies for P and VP, and so I assume that unitary tickets are counted as one vote each for P and VP. Not hard to guess that the custom arose because it strengthens party control.

But what if our hypothetical contest between a matched set of independents was on the basis that both would run, as individuals, for both offices; and us independents agreed that if we choose one for President, we choose the other as Vice President? That would make it not only a vote for President/VP, it would be a referendum on the parties. Such an agreement should work to the equal detriment of both parties, preserving the parity essential in both political reform and arms control. If we want to disarm the parties, we have to draw them down together.

That basis might overcome the pride that would prevent either one from running as the other's subordinate VP. But of course it introduces the gnarly concept of the "co-presidency", and I saw the thread resurrecting that old chestnut. Don't know how it would work, but at this point in history, I'm willing to experiment and see what happens. How could it be worse than what we have now?