Over at the Wall Street Journal, John Fund has a frightening thought. Think about a Vice President who served loyally through two successive administrations, and then lost a close race in his own bid for the Presidency.

Is Al Gore the new version of Richard Nixon?

It's not farfetched at all -- in fact there are more parallels than you can shake a stick at.

1. Gore is a savage campaigner against potential rivals within the party.

2. Gore is a wooden campaigner against the other party.

3. Gore's frequent and transparent attempts to change his public image have always invited ridicule.

4. Gore missed the presidency by a hair in a disputed election.

. . . and I believe that Nixon had a secretary named Gore and Gore has a secretary named Nixon (and she helped Gore invent the Internet).

And another: Nixon won the presidency during a time of turmoil, when it became obvious that the existing administration wasn't up to the job. I don't think Gore has much of a chance against a popular incumbent, but Bush needs to make sure that he doesn't become Johnson. (And they're both from Texas, too!)

But Nixon ran for a lesser office after losing the presidency, and lost, and his comeback was to "save" his party repeating the disaster that followed him. The parallel only works if Algore loses this year in his native D.C. er, Tennessee, and the Dems lose in 2004 with Gephardt/Sharpton. Thompson is retiring, but the only Gore talked about succeeding him was one of the Mothers of Prevention-- Tipper.