Just a rant, for consideration:
Gore Vs. Bush was a traumatic event for the Democrats, mainly because they lost. It was also traumatic for the country as a whole, and very damaging. Let's review a little history. Nixon decided to not challenge Kennedy's "disputed" win in 1960, for the "good of the country." In 1968, there were riots at the Democratic convention over a "back room" deal to nominate Hubert Humphrey. In 2000, Gore decided to challenge Bush's "disputed" win, and brought the legal system fully into presidential politics.What will happen at the Democratic convention in 2008? Will the lawyers devour the the party nomination process, and will protests occur at the courthouse, as well as at the convention?
According to many pundits, Hillary has to show the class that Al Gore lacked in 2000, if she wants to save her party. Will she "blow up" the party, rather than losing gracefully? How much damage can she do, if she feels scorned? This will be an interesting primary battle, rivaling Gore Vs. Bush in media coverage, if not surpassing it. One difference between Gore v Bush, and a potential Clinton v Obama lawsuit is that, as a party nomination, it will not affect the operation of government in any immediate way, and so can be reported on more fully. Another reason this Democrat primary will get more coverage than many general elections is that it's between a White woman and a Black man, which has a separate historical contextual signifigance. Most of these contests in recent history have been between two "white guys," after all.
Clinton v Obama could be the court drama of the summer of '08, leading up to a contentious convention. Of course, this is all hypothetical, at this point. Whether it comes to pass or not, expect me to elaborate on these ideas, until the Dems have picked a nominee for president. The Democratic party is going to reap what they've sown, with their own policies of suing over "racial" and "gender" identity coming back to bite them in the ass, politically.