Dickerson, who has my vote for numbnuts of the decade, breathes a sigh of relief because Biden changed the subject from the Clintons. He didn't, but that's not the point. The point is, why would you?

That's exactly what rock star Al Gore did in 2000, magically transforming a presidency handed to him on a plate into a gig as president of the senate counting the electoral votes for Bush.

Great move. Give the wife a DFK on stage, prove you're not the kind of guy to get no BJ from a 21-year old on the sly (nobody thought otherwise, Al). Make sure you never mention a 68% approval rating post-impeachment. Don't even hint that the massive multi-trillion dollar projected surplus would wipe out the federal debt forever in less than 10 years. Peace, smeech, anybody could do it.

So he lost, 271-267. How does that compare with dirty old Bubba and his evil appetites? 1996: Clinton 379, Dole 159. 1992: Clinton 370, Bush 168. Today? Almost a dead heat according to RCP's electoral map (not Slate's wishful one).

Yea, run away from the Clintons. Great idea.

lawpol,

You are free to write in either Bill or Hillary Clinton in November -- if it makes you happy.

Unless, however, you own a very large time machine, then you are not going to be able to take the entire nation back to 1990.

It would be a step in the right direction for regaining your mental health if you could find a way to finally get over having had your favorite candidate lose this election.

What makes you think that the Clintons aren't going to be involved in this election? They have been given star speaking slots at the convention and they will be used extensively to campaign for the ticket in the coming months. Al Gore did make a mistake in failing to leverage Bill Clinton in his campaign. Barack Obama has not done that.

It's just part of the goofy, pre-constructed "narrative" that journalists crave for stuff like this.

The Clintons absolutely have a prominent place in the party; the difference is that they should not dominate the party--which is why Obama and not Hillary is the candidate.

20/20 hindsight says Gore made a mistake by not using Clinton in 2000, but "Clinton fatigue" was very real, then, and Gore's personality can't help but fade next to Clinton's.

Barry's the man, we know that. To suggest that it's idiotic to run away from the Clintons record and electoral talent--as Gore actually did and Dickersdope is pining for--is not the same as being unreconstructed Marxists hoping for the return of Stalin. It's hard nosed reality. The Clintons and Obamas are not buds, nor the Gores and Clintons. So what? You don't have to like somebody to work with them (cue up Kennedy-Johnson reel). Besides, keep your friends close maybe, but always keep your enemies closer.