Ok, my understanding is that Clinton and Gore will testify privately and not under oath. It seems to me that the coming GOP talking point will be 'well, if Clinton and Gore don't testify publicly how can we ask a sitting NSA to testify publicly?'
Well, on principle, I think they should testify publicly and under oath. Why the hell not?
On the politics, first blush would make it seem that in private would be better for Dems, because then the focus would not be on Clinton. I think not. The Big Dog publicly testifying would work for us - why? First, he is a terrific speaker. second, he is smart as hell and will be able to frame the issue in a favorable way for us. Third, it will remind folks that when Clinton was President, our worries wer BJs. Fourth, and most important, it would put alot of pressure on Cheney and Bush to testify publicly, which they will never do.
An aside, I saw rep[orted on CNN that their poll says that 53% say that BushCo is "covering up"? That's good news. Where is the Media on that finding?