Washington ? Upon being asked what would happen in the event of an Al Gore presidential bid, a prominent Democrat here gushed, “For one thing, I would vote for him. And, I believe, so would lots of Democrats.”

Now, I am not advocating Gore for president or anyone else. The party-affiliation box that I check, which has included both “Democrat” and “Republican” in the past, reads “Independent.” Besides, I am far from making a choice, although I have been thinking about the 2008 election for a fair amount of time.

In a column two years ago, I toyed with the idea of a Hillary Clinton-Condoleezza Rice presidential contest. Readers indicated less-than-overwhelming interest, with both the U.S. senator from New York and former U.S. first lady and the secretary of state receiving less than 40 percent of the “votes” cast.

Of course, only one of the two – Clinton – has joined the official race thus far. But does she shape up as the ideal standard-bearer for Democrats?

For that matter, would Rice – should she leave her administration post and jump into elective politics – present the ideal candidate for Republicans?

I like various aspects of Clinton’s foreign-policy positions, including much of her stance on Iraq, as well as certain other views. Her overall vision, though, fails to inspire me. Similarly, I appreciate Rice’s foreign-affairs expertise, having personally witnessed her adroit explanation of complex global issues, but the Cold War still has too much of a claim on her thinking.

Therefore, my predisposition leans toward a “no” in either case. Indeed, I have a difficult time designing dream tickets based on the present candidates of the two major parties.

Among Republicans, I believe that U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona has an edge. I suspect that he would have handled the war in Iraq more effectively than the Bush administration has – including the dispatching of enough troops to lock down the country and give democracy a chance. Also, McCain’s intense support of the war against terrorism suggests a candidate with a finger on the future, and his informed maverick ways indicate ample willingness to try different approaches.

And for the Republican No. 2? Although some people might point to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as obvious dream-team running mates for McCain, neither combination energizes me.

But pair McCain with someone such as U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine – who could easily run for president herself – and Republicans would have a creative, balanced ticket. She, too, strikes me as someone with a finger on the future.

As for Democrats, though it might resonate as an inconvenient truth for current contenders, 2008 surely is the year for Gore. He offers hefty experience as a former U.S. representative, senator and vice president. Unlike some other Democratic candidates, he would bring a unifying influence. And, despite his role in the Clinton administration, Gore now freely pursues his own agenda – with an Oscar lighting the way. Given his early trumpeting of the Internet and concern about global climate change, he, too, would be a candidate with a finger on the future.

For the No. 2 slot on the Democrats’ dream team, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois stands out. That arrangement could generate excitement among those who view his presidential ambitions as premature. Obama eloquently takes a position in the vanguard of a changing, more diverse America and, thus, also has his finger on the future.

I am interested in what readers have to say on this subject. Can you identify a dream team among the existing Republican and Democratic candidates for president? If not, how about creating your own? Send your responses to johncbersia@msn.com, and I will summarize the results in a future column.