I am not a fan of Al Gore’s. Never have been. Could not wait to vote against him in the 1988 New York primary. But, as I said last March, he has the best chance to win the presidency in 2008 of any candidate in either party.

I mention this again now because my sense is, despite the recent announcements from senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson and others, this dynamic has not changed. In fact, an announcement yesterday may have improved Gore’s chances:

Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry took himself out of the running for president in 2008, choosing instead to devote his energies to ending the Iraq war. Call me crazy, but Al Gore’s prospects just got even better than before. If he doesn’t announce soon I’ll eat my hat

What has Gore got that the others don’t? A record. He was right about the war in Iraq, right about global warming, right that Bush would raid the Social Security “lock box” and on and on. Unlike John Kerry in 2004, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. All things being equal, it’s hard to see how Gore couldn’t carry every state Kerry took plus Ohio (and maybe even Tennessee).

His biggest challenge is that — like me — the “liberal media” hordes don’t like him. Yet, it’s also possible to imagine that some of them may feel chastened enough by the undue respect they gave the aristocratic boor they helped elect in 2000 and 2004 to give Al Gore a second look.

Plus, Gore has beome a lot feistier in his time out of office. He’s given himself the freedom to speak more candidly — to avoid the courtly hemming and hawing he learned in the Senate and that made him appear so wooden in his appearances as vice president and as a candidate in 2000.

All that seems to be missing right now is the proverbial fire in his belly.

That didn’t take long. In discussing Gov. Bill Richardson’s announcement that he was running for president, I said yesterday that he had more experience than the senators in the race “and (probably) the least amount of baggage.”

Today I read an article by Steve Clemons, editor of the Washington Note — and whose progressives bona fides are in good order — accusing Richardson of inappropriate behavior around women:

Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees — who work as colleagues with you — and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.

I ask it because I was not in the room when this particular incident occurred but many others were — and rumors have long swept around Santa Fe that Bill Richardson makes a constant festive joke out of demeaning women. These incidents don’t have to do with the comments by Lt. Governor Diane Denish that Richardson is a “touchy” and “feely” Governor. They have to do with questions about a far more crude kind of gesture that demeans professional women.

These concerns I have heard may be completely contrived, but after speaking with several senior level New Mexico officials, my sense is that it needs to at a minimum be addressed by the Governor who wants to be President. Some suggest that Richardson “can’t stop himself” or “doesn’t even realize what he is doing” or thinks that “this sort of thing is part of New Mexico’s political scene.”

One accuser is the lieutenant governor of New Mexico, Diane Denish. It appears the Richardson campaign could be putting out a fire before it puts out its shingle.

Looks like Gov. Bill Richardson is in the race:

Richardson, 59, is a former congressman, U.N. ambassador and Energy Department secretary. He brings a wealth of experience in international affairs that has extended even into his governorship of a sparsely populated but politically important swing state.

He has hosted talks on North Korea’s nuclear program and most recently traveled to Sudan to meet with the country’s president to press him for an end to the bloodshed in Darfur.

Both Al Gore and Senator John Kerry considered Richardson as their running mate because of his impressive portfolio, his potential to win over Hispanic voters and his home in a western swing state.

Yet Richardson enters the 2008 race as an underdog. Polling in early voting states shows him ranking near the bottom in a very crowded Democratic field led by Clinton, Obama and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

Out of the candidates listed here, my money is on Richardson. He has the most experience and (probably) the least amount of baggage.

In the unlikely event that Sen. Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, I will vote for him in the general election that November. However, I will be very surprised if there is any chance he will win.

I agree that he has all the attributes ascribed to him by the Gang of 500 — he’s smart, well-spoken and telegenic, and all of those qualities would be a refreshing change after eight years of Bush. Unfortunately, none of those qualities will have an impact, finally, on his ability to win.

His lack of experience is a factor, but the main reason he’ll lose, I’m sorry to say, is his father’s race.

It appeals to our higher selves to believe that America is ready to elect an African-American president. Unfortunately, recent electoral history indicates otherwise:

• Harold Ford Jr.’s loss of the Tennessee senate seat to the revolting Bob Corker last year.
• Former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt’s two close losses to the even more revolting Sen. Jesse Helms in North Carolina a decade ago.
• Former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s two losses to the odious Gov. George Deukmejian in California in the 1980s.

In each of these cases, white independent voters just couldn’t vote for a black candidate, even though in each instance the black candidate was equally or more intelligent, articulate and experienced than the white candidate.

There were other factors, of course. Both Gantt and Bradley were mayors of the biggest cities in their states, and thus stigmatized in the eyes of rural voters. Both Gantt and Ford were targeted with racist advertising. Sen. Helms ran an ad showing a white man receiving a rejection letter for a job purportedly because a black man had been given “his” job because of affirmative action. Ford was the target of the infamous “Harold, call me” ad that implied he dated white women, heaven forfend.

In the cases of both Bradley and Gantt, polling throughout the election showed close races, but on election day, the white candidates won decided victories. So white people were telling pollsters they would vote for a black candidate but couldn’t actually do it when the time came.

Of course, Deval Patrick was elected last year as Massachusetts’ first black governor, and as a presidential candidate, it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama were to win Massachusetts. He might even win all the states John Kerry won in 2004, but as we saw then, that was not enough.

Every election is momentous but the stakes are as high as they can be in 2008. The future of the United States depends on a Democratic victory. It is a harsh indictment, I know, but while Americans will vote a functionally retarded white guy into the Oval Office twice, there is no chance in hell the country is ready to elect a black person or, for that matter, a white woman.

Like all good liberals, I yearn for the day when race, gender and, what the heck, sexual orientation, are not a factor in who we elect to be president. And while I wish Sen. Obama well in the coming campaign, unfortunately, America is not there yet.