You really have to be kidding. The Clintons have never put the good of the country ahead of their own personal ambitions. If Hillary thought the Democrats could win in 2004, she'd be running, without question. She's sitting it out because she doesn't want to lose.
Ok now, settle down. Let's not drag this into a "Clinton is evil, Bush is evil" argument.
In response to the original question I have to say that while Howard Dean is not my favorite of the Democratic candidates (my personal favorite is John Kerry) I would vote for him over George Bush. In fact I'd vote for any of the Democratic candidates (except Sharpton & Kucinich) over Bush.
I think most Democrats feel this same way. On our side of the fence there is a general dissatisfaction with Bush's performance. I tend to believe that the Clintons probably feel the same way. They will both endorse whomever wins the nomination.
If the nominee (whether that is Dean, Kerry, or whomever) wins the general election then that individual will, unquestionably, become the leader of the party. Should that happen, Hillary is best served (whether you believe her motives to be noble or self-serving) by working with that person.
Would there be some tension? Yes, probably some as there was between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
Would I, as a Democrat, hate being "caught in the middle"? Well, I'd prefer it to 4 more years of a Bush administration.
