Far from Obama-Clinton, my dream pairing would be Obama and Al Gore.

I concede that there is infinitessimally little chance of this happening that it is sophomoric to expend even these next few electrons on it. But, hey, they're only electrons.

The prime unlikelihood is that Gore has already been VP, so why would he be willing, under any circumstances, to re-up? And, if he bled for national politics, he would have run — certainly he had enough boosters begging him to do it. After 2000, who could blame any candidate for walking away forever? Plus, he's making plenty of money, has worldwide acclaim, and none of the crushing downsides of scrutiny and forced propriety that all politicians face.

But just for yuks, let me play out some string here:

The biggest question is, why would Gore go for it? And my answer is, if he were offered the job almost as co-presidents, with his own portfolio, he would be in position to effect change in ways he could otherwise only prescribe. Instead of the US's being a Kyoto outlaw, he could make the US a world leader in energy policies advancing efficiency and renewables. Certainly, there is enough to be done in this sector along to keep him busy. I don't suggest that he'd be the energy president only, that Obama would keep everything else; I only say that it would begin there.

I've always thought that one reason Gore chose not to run was that he was unwilling to have to devote three-four years to a task with such an uncertain payoff — considering that last time, he won and still didn't become president. But under these circumstances, he would be far more likely to win-win, and he would have to devote, at most, 6 months to the effort.

The idea of co-presidents didn't fly when Reagan flirted with taking the vice presidency under Gerry Ford, but that was 1980. After the past 7 years, not only it would be hard to argue that we haven't already had our first co-presidents, but it might spur some debate on who came first, Cheney or Bush.

So the next question is, why would Obama go for it? He vanquishes eight rivals in an 18-month slog, and will likely enter the fall as the front-runner. Why cede so much when he's got a good shot to win anyway?

For starters, this would cinch the election. The idea's excitement factor, both on its merits and as a symbol of the candidate's out-of-the-box thinking, would provoke a stampede and result in a landslide. And yes, Obama would give up a lot, but I don't see him as jealously guarding his power in the way that I would expect Clinton to do. (This is an expression of why I so favor him over her — no way anyone could contemplate her sharing in a similar scenario. She wouldn't cede shit, because it's hers, dammit!)

Just as Americans would be be enthusiastic, so would the world. Just having Obama as president is going to begin to repair America's image abroad — a thinker instead of a cowboy, a partner instead of a clueless, arrogant bully. Having both of them at the top level would do even more than either of them could do alone.

There is so much to be done. There are few who wouldn't echo Madeleine Albright, who says that the next president will face an unprecedented array of challenges at home and around the world. Hell, it would be an imposing job just to repair all the damage that Bush has wrought, never mind to tackle all the areas he has failed to address.

My biggest complain about Obama is that he is, at best, uninspiring on climate change and on promoting the shift to renewables and efficiency, and away from coal and oil. He needs guidance in this area, or even leadership. There is no one better equipped to help him than Al Gore.

Symbolically and practically, this is an idea that works.