And it's exactly that combination that defines lbo-talk's considered judgment: the vast plurality of us think that all the choices suck beyond belief. And given that, and allowed to express that, our choice is Gore. And our message would clearly be: we're think you're the best of a bad field. But our real desire is that you'd go far beyond the given array of choices. In case you're interested, FWIW.
[WS:] I thought you have a more sophisticated understanding of the political process than a variation on the theme "good tsar bad boyars." The US is a democracy, not a hereditary monarchy where the views of the monarch become the policy. That policies that you or I would like to see are not even considered result from a low public support for such policies rather than from shortage of politicians with a favorable mindset or ideology. The "Goldman on global warming" piece posted by Doug is a case in point - there might be many politicians who favor a tougher stance on emissions and climate changes, but the general public is not favorably disposed toward such measures.
It is the public opinion - the split the difference stance of the median voter plus influence of the myriad of interest groups - rather than the will of politicians that determines the political agenda and keeps certain issues (not only those favored by the left) off that agenda. Including these issues in one's political platform is tantamount to political suicide - as demonstrated by the minuscule public support of left-leaning candidates, such as Kucinich. I am pretty sure that this would not change even if Karl Marx were resurrected and elected president - we would still have business a usual, and the disgruntled lefties would talk about sell out and finding another political icon.
Wojtek