In Bob Herbert's latest column, he writes about a familiar topic these days: prospects for Gore running in 2008.

I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.

The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.

Not to diminish Herbert's words, but it's hard to imagine that anyone would've screwed things up worse than GW in his two terms.

Herbert has this nugget from Gore, "You know, I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth. Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”

Sounds like he's simply playing down expectations, which is typical behavior for anyone running or planning to run for president. We especially observed this with Rove's handling of Bush, set the bar low and it makes it that much easier to excel and appear winning.

If anything, Gore appears to be getting better at politics.

Concerning Iraq, Gore says the objective should be "to get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there."

A near perfect answer, especially for a presidential contender. Note he made sure to remind that he "opposed this war in the first instance."

Yeah, I think the door's still wide open.