Former vice president Al Gore is back in the media spotlight, and the blogosphere is buzzing about what's next for everyone's favorite sore loser. The weekend news was Gore's $300 million campaign "to try to push climate change higher on the nation’s political agenda." The Politico reported yesterday:

The three-year campaign by the Alliance for Climate Protection will begin Wednesday with network television advertising that will include “American Idol” and other non-traditional shows that reach a non-news audience...

Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton just filmed an ad for the We Campaign, sitting on a couch on the beach...

The campaign is being paid for in part with profits from Gore’s global-warming book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and with the prize money from his share of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he matched.

As blogger McQ at QandO notes, "for a guy who just said in an interview that skeptics are a 'tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,' he sure is behind spending a lot of money to convince the world there's a 'climate crisis' problem."

And of Gore's ad choices, Ed Morrissey says, "What other strange bedfellows can Gore pair for his campaign? Jeremiah Wright and David Duke? Eliot Spitzer and Ashley Dupre?" Michelle Malkin also finds it ludicrous.

The launch of the campaign coincides perfectly with a Telegraph report that some Democratic party bigwigs are discussing the possibility of a Gore nomination in hopes of uniting the party. Conservative bloggers tend to find this idea equally laughable.

Gateway Pundit snarks, "It looks like Al Gore has already saved the planet from warming as evidenced by the record snow and low temperatures this past year and scientific data proving the planet is cooling...Can Al Gore save the Democratic Party, too?" And PoliGazette's Michael van der Galien imagines Gore's stump speech: "'I invented the Internet and I won the Nobel Peace Prize (which I also may have invented); elect me president!'"

Clearly the Democrats are panicking, as Ed Morrissey says, "Desperation leads the unwise to folly, and this is perhaps the best example yet seen." Jules Crittenden adds, "I think my favorite part … aside from the whole thing, that is … is the idea that replacing the Hero of Tuzla and the change-hoping bigot buddy with an exaggerating doomsayer somehow gets this train back on the rails."

Most bloggers think a Gore nomination would not be the best idea--for the Democratic party, or democracy in general. Dave at the Political Machine thinks this could never happen: "Both sides would have to be convinced that Gore is an acceptable alternative to their candidate winning in their own right. And we're not there yet at all. Barack has a lead in the delegates, and Hillary still thinks she owns the nomination." And Mark Levin at the Corner explains exactly why a Gore nomination would be bad for the Democrats, concluding, "It seems to me that a Gore nomination creates serious problems for the Democrat Party. So, I would encourage the Democrats to do it."