It's a good thing for Dem Lefties to "Go With Hillary/Bill" because in the

[KoKo]

end...if Hillary/Bill get some bad numbers it allows Gore to come in an "suck more oxygen out" as Eric Alterman so aptly described in a column before he was "canned by MSNBC."

Hillary & Bill are making an incredible "come back" and Bill is getting great Talking Points across for our Dem side of the aisle.

Gore is in the Wings....he's waiting until the DIVA's IMPLODE to come in and make his KILL.

He has ALOT OF SUPPORT...and he sits there like a "Spider" waiting to roll up his "prey" in his web...because he WILL NOT RUN...if he has to do a "traditional Campaign RUN" but if Bill and Hillary can pull off high Media Numbers then you might have a "Joining of Forces" between Hillary/Bill and Gore/??? for 2008!.

In other words...Bill and Hillary could bring Gore into a highly visible position in a new Dem Alliance and the REVERSE is true that Gore/??? could bring Hillary/Bill into an alliance that would WIN IN 2008!

After all...we Dems are desperate for LEADERS... I'd rather go with GORE but there are those who like DYNASTY and feel we Dems are in such DESPERATE condition that we need to go with Hillary because she has some good FIGHTERS working with her. (the fact that the "fighters" are typical Dem Lobbyists should be ignored because the STATUS QUO needs to be maintained.)

In this scenario...I go for GORE..and if the Clintons can help him achieve the Presidency..then I say "GO FOR IT!!!"

[roguevalley]

1. Gore speaks for the planet and its illness right now so that makes

him my man if he wants to run.

RV, sitting in ALASKA in 48 degree weather in OCTOBER.

[nealmhughes]

2. I make no secret of my dislike for Mrs. Clinton's politics as well as for

Mr. Clinton's in specific areas: "triangulation" and corporate ties and NAFTA especially.

If they can be useful to the party as a whole, then fine. But I frankly don't care for their style or their substance.

HRC's vote on cluster bombs was disgusting. As was her tie up for of the Ryan White reauthorization. If she cared so damned much, why didn't she get off the back bench and rail for FULL funding for Ryan White instead of only railing against cuts for NYC, Cali and Florida?

She made no friends in the HIV activism community outside of NY, California and Florida, and even people in NYC were peturbed at her for demanding a static funding level at old formulae instead of leading the charge for HIV funding the cases and not the organizations in the several states and territories and cities and counties as it is now.

NAFTA is an utter catastrophe that only the grossest globalist could support. Her war mongering is disgusting...but if she can raise some bucks and folks like Dennis and General Clark and Al Gore get a bit of it, go ahead, but I don't like her, and she can't do enough penance so far as I am concerned. But I am more than willing to have her take indulgence money to the altar...

[peacetalksforall]

3. I agree, You said it. She can do more by not running - in the end.

Gore is it and several other candidates should also run - people whose credentials are more impeccable than the Clinton's.

The hard core of Republicans is 27-37. Dems need some of them and most to all of the other 10+ per cent. Possibly doable if things keep going this way.

I personally will not support anyone who voted for the war or Patriot Act unless I'm carried kicking and screaming because the DLC won again.

In the meantime, we must decide if the DLC is running the nomination show again and if they are going to pick their person again. We are helpless if the DLC doesn't listen again.