I'm of the view that Senator Clinton has a minuscule chance of becoming president of the United States. The big question for the Democrats right now is: who else? Mark Warner's foreign policy weakness would be a fatal signal for the party to send about its approach to the war. Barack Obama has enormous talent but insufficient experience. Evan Bayh? Too bland. Feingold? Too left. Er, that's it. That's why Gore keeps re-emerging as a possibility. He's the most viable candidate in my view - because he has a long record, pre-9/11, of hawkishness and expertise in foreign policy, simply couldn't be more fiscally reckless than the Republicans, and takes the geo-politics of oil-addiction seriously. Still, he's also a terrible candidate ... and far better one step away from the limelight. An Obama-Gore ticket, with Gore as the veep, is a variation on the Bush-Cheney 2000 strategy - a young, untested pol with a daddy at his side. Michael Grunwald makes the argument here, and I don't think it's nuts.

(Photo: Frederick M. Brown/Getty.)