And I do believe that at times, women have a harder time working for other women.  We respond to each other differently and assertive women can be intimidating to both men and other women.  We are our worst critics and we scrutinize one another more than men.  Some may disagree, but I really believe it to be true.

The press had been having a field day with that for over a year!  Perhaps you think that a bona fide impeachment, the long drawn out investigation and Bill Clinton being grilled in front of Congress was forgotten by 2000?

Bill Clinton might have been personally popular, and his personal problems might not have been administration-wide scandals, but impeachment and Lewinski cast a cloud over what should have been eight years of acheivment.

Some things just leave a bad taste in people's mouths.  Why is the AUMF vote a deal breaker for some people?(go Kucinich!)

during 1999-2000.

Clinton: 60-67% personal unfavorable (99-00).

"You're doing nothing to help your candidate."

I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. I supported him strongly during impeachment, as did Gore.

But, it's irrefutable that Clinton harmed Gore with his reckless bahavior (after helped him win in 1992, and worked hard towards their joint successes).

because Perot split off the vote for Bush I.

Clinton inherited a world where the Berlin Wall had just come down and Russia was in turmoil and dissolving.

We had a window of opportunity to pursue peace and stability in lieu of a Cold War. Clinton/Gore pursued an economic policy favorable to the middle class - across the globe. It's a solid policy and won lots of hearts.

Unfortunately, the rabid freaks of the GOP had their neocon plans interrupted and the quadrupling of our national debt under Reagan had to be addressed. So, Clinton reorganized and cut the military. The outrage was vicious.

Clinton is an extremely intelligent man, but his flaws undermine his strengths. He did manage to give people the perception of caring and empathy... especially with that little biting lip thing... but he could be ruthless when necessary. He took care of himself and made sure Hilary was set up to proceed... at the expense of the Democratic Party and our nation.

within 24 hours becomes a political truth. i don't remember which assault of Gore's veracity was the first. But for the sake of argument, let's just say it was the "al gore says he invented the internet" bullshit.

You fight that by sending out an immediate press release detailing how aggressively you championed the internet. Gore's the VP. He can get on any talk show immediately. He can probably get a spokes person on a talk show immediately as well. You go on talk shows yourself (depending upon how aggressively you feel you need to fight something) or you get your spokespeople on and you talk about what you did to help create the internet. You offer up experts on the subject to the panel shows to talk about what you did. You blanket the media with an immediate response. You talk to reporters at major media outsets and you offer them an exclusive interview if they'll allow you to address this stuff - which, of course, they'll be delighted if you do.

And it is a constant battle. There is a lot of stuff a candidate has to fight non-stop through out the campaign. What you don't do is ignore it because if you ignore it, it sticks. Gore did worse. He joked about it.

Your rhetoric is the reason Dems win. You're encouraging Democrats to be passive and not learn from their mistakes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're full of shit. I am saying no such thing. I'll just throw your own words back at you:

You're reading stuff that isn't there into my responses because you're locked into a way of thinking.

Will Gore have to counter smears if he runs? Absolutely he will. But he has enormous advantages that Hillary lacks.

Hillary hasn't yet faced the full power of the RW media machine. They're waiting till she gets the nomination. Right now it's only other Democrats she has to worry about, and they don't play nearly as dirty as the Republicans. I really don't see any indication that she would be able to respond more effectively than Gore would.

Recently the media started in on Hillary's "cackle". What exactly did she do to slap that one down? Now it's out there, and you can bet they'll bring it back if she wins the nomination.

The problem with the anti-Gore smears of 2000 is that they were not just individual lies, but an entire, coherent narrative, tacitly agreed on by the pundits. You cannot fight accusations of being a liar if the media says that every word that comes out of your mouth is a lie.

If you're painted alternatively as a weak-willed woman and the Wicked Witch of the West (as they will undoubtedly do to Hillary if she's the nominee) everything you say or do will be seen through that frame. And what can you say to counter that? "I'm not a weak-willed woman" or "I'm not the Wicked Witch of the West"? Do you realize how lame that would sound?

Gore understands the dysfunctional media machine, as one can see from The Assault on Reason. If he runs he will exploit the power of the Internet to debunk the lies and get his message out, and, having learned from bitter experience, will handle the conventional media with more care.

Hillary has shown no such distrust or understanding of the media. She'll walk right into what they'll fling at her, and it will be ugly.