Who's more likely to enter the race: Gore or Thompson? Gore!

That's what I get out of reading John Hinderaker at Power Line today.

1. re Gore: "Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months," according to the Taipei Times.

2. re Fred Thompson: "The Fred Thompson campaign recently set up an event for 60 of Congress's most solid conservatives. Many of them were hoping to be able to endorse Thompson. Unfortunately, Thompson did not impress the Congressmen. He did not appear to be ready for a tough Presidential campaign. One of his aides explained that Thompson was 'rusty,' which, as one Congressman told me, did not inspire much confidence in this YouTube era. Some of those who attended are now looking at Mitt Romney as the most viable conservative in the race."

"Rusty." Great word. What does it connote? Lazy/dumb? Or just not in the mood? Or is John Hinderaker trying to tip us toward Romney? This business about "confidence in this YouTube era" seems to say: Don't worry about slick. We need slick. Slick is good.

As for Gore, what do you make of that? Someone check to see if he's on a diet. If so, he's running. And I say, welcome! Gore is a worthy entrant in the race.

UPDATE: Now, Power Line is saying that the Gore story from Taiwan is a fake. The link goes here:

I just contacted Al Gore's office and was told the following about the article.

It is completely and utterly false.

1. He never accepted an event in Taiwan
2. We have loads of events on the schedule in the next six months

I don?t know how to spell bubkus but there?s no credibility to this whatsoever.

Hmmm... so is that the end of it, or is there something suspicious about the denial? "Completely and utterly" is awfully strong. I was thinking maybe "never accepted" left some room for a tentative plan that was then abandoned, and maybe "loads of events on the schedule" means... oh, I give up!