What a surprise to discover that the vast majority of mainstream media writers feel they have been doing a good job covering the Iraq War fiasco. This despite continuously changing rationales for the war, despite a claim of "mission accomplished" several years ago, and despite the clear and obvious evidence that Iraq is decending into anarchy. This war and this administration will be seen in historical perspective as the time when the US public and the US media abandoned all sense of responsibility toward preserving the truth. I am sufficiently embarrassed as a voter that we re-elected this President after so much evidence of failure, but the press should be equally embarrassed that they simply refused to ask the hard questions for the past 6 years. We are all at fault, and we will be doomed to repeat our mistakes until we acknowledge them and learn what we must do differently from this point forward. We can begin to trust our journalists again when they begin serving the function we need from the press---i.e., to cover the war, the loss of civil liberties in America, and the loss of integrity among politicians of all parties---- with just as much depth and seriousness as they have covered the tragic death and paternity struggles of a former playboy bunny.

Given the relatively liberal readership and slant of Salon (I count this as a good thing), the responses to the interview with Hillary are indicative of the real reason she cannot win in 2008---and the corollary reason why concerned Democrats should be doing all they can to ensure a candidate other than Hillary for our next Presidential election. It is clear and obvious that Hillary is hated by 100% of the Republican faithful. This alone could be overcome, were it not for the fact that Hillary is also hated by a substantial portion of the Democratic faithful. Consequently, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, she will ensure a significant number of Democratic "crossover" votes cast for Republican or third party candidates, and the process will ensure a Democratic loss. I have yet to hear any pundit or interviewer who is sufficiently bold to ask Hillary whether she cares enough about Democratic victory in 2008 to stand aside, given the fact that this is the only way to ensure victory. We need a President who cares more about the future of Democratic values in our republic than his/her own emotional and personal needs to become President---As smart and clever and articulate as Hillary is, I have never felt that she cares about ensuring Democratic victory in 2008 nearly as much as she cares about becoming President. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I feel certain that a Hillary candidacy in 2008 will ensure one of the worst defeats in the history of our Democratic party.

Mr. Greenwald is of course, correct in virtually every point he makes. However, I am somewhat surprised that he is so shocked by what he is reading. This war has been the first war in our nation's history that has been 100% economically driven, including most aspects of reporting by the mainstream media. This administration has bought the very best reporting available; previously honorable journals such as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are among the many journals that have lost all journalistic credibility with regards to any pretense of accurate reporting on the Iraq War. This has been clear and obvious for over 5 years, and Mr. O'Hanlon and colleagues are but a minor footnote in the ongoing sham. Until the American public finds equally compelling social, moral, and (of course) economic forces to combat this war and the other unconstitutional behavior of our current government, the sham will continue un-contested. This is not news.

Tomreedtune nailed the issue in his post above. This is perhaps not the first time, but it is clearly the most obvious case of the Republican Party doing all that they can do to promote the opposition candidate they feel is easiest to defeat in the general election. They know that Hillary is the most devisive candidate among Democrats, and the most unifying candidate against whom the eventual Republican candidate could possibly run.

In short, Hillary is the candidate Republicans know will be easiest to defeat, so they are doing everything in their power to ensure a Hillary candidacy in 2008. Hillary cannot and will not win the general election in 2008; the sooner the Democratic party leadership comes to understand this fact, the sooner they can rally the troops to nominate somebody who has a strong chance to become the next Democratic President in 2008.

Don't take my word for this: just read the countless articles by Right Wing Pundits in the past month. They are doing everything possible to marginalize Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden (the others seem to marginalize themselves without any help). Clearly, the goal is to make Hillary the inevitable Democratic candidate as soon as possible, so the Republicans have the maximum time available to mobilize against her.