This is couched as critical of Clinton, but asserts the following: she is bound to win, she is competent.

Moreover, it's a horserace story with no coverage of the issues. Why doesn't Clinton support direct government loans for school, or public financing for need based students at state schools? Why no mention of the opinion of many on the left that the "smooth talk" Scherer claims to be covering is a cover for a corporate candidate? Or for that matter, why not point out that there's a war on, the dollar is about to collapse, our Constitution is in tatters and the Democratic frontrunner is focusing on half measures for higher education that is increasingly impotent in a failing job market?

If I want propaganda, I can watch TV.

Hey damnthatxanadu,

I don't like Clinton because she doesn't represent me. I would vote for Barbara Lee. Don't you dare call me anti-woman because I don't like this corporate candidate, who happens to be female. I am not lucky there is a Hillary, because she is an obstacle to my political goals: restoring the Constitution, taking war off the table, investing in America.

Does the campaign pay you to claim that justified criticism is just anti-feminist crap?

I think Scherer asked Hillary supporters to attack him so that those of us who see he is advocating our campaign will shut up.

This is clearly a postive Clinton piece with vocabulary that makes it sound negative.

Moreover, the people who attack those of us who criticize Clinton and the shallow Scherer coverage NEVER take on our points. We are anti-women, or Leninists. Why? Because we don't want a Democratic candidate that works within Bush/GOP frames? That's our fault?

Let's be clear. Clinton:

- Beats the drum for war with Iran

- Wants to extend the estate tax cut and calls it savings

- Has a healthcare program that rewards private

insurers (and won't help the poor much)

- Has a retirement program that rewards Wall Street (and won't help the poor much)

- Refuses to talk much about the falling dollar, the fact that the USA no longer produces much, that wealth distribution is a cancer in our society (no I don't want communism -- a early 1950's, 60's or even 70's middle class will do).

She doesn't represent me for these and other reasons. If you want to attack me, defend her policies; don't just act like she's progressive.

Clinton critics:

"Clinton supports right-wing assumptions about crime, welfare, war and regulation -- and the left has no assurances that her nods at progressivism will mean anything once she's elected."

Hillary Supporters:

"Why can't a woman run hard?"

Right about sounding like freepers - I think as the national Democratic Party and the candidates it pushes adopts GOP characteristics and strategies, we should expect the national party/Clinton loyalists (like CBDZ) to adopt the GOP base's tactics.

They never respond to facts and distort the argument. Notice how Clinton critics from the left are "right wing" for calling her corporate? They are willing to destroy language right along with Bush-Cheney.

I bet volunteer staffers get trained by the campaign to troll blogs and just blow up criticism without getting into policy specifics. People think this is conspiracy theory have never worked in DC and have no idea how this is what communication advisers do these days.

Why not have all states have a caucus primary on the same day in July? Having anti-tax New Hampshire and socially conservative Iowa -- both tiny states -- call the shots is bad for democracy. Moreover, having universal caucus systems will diminish the power of the 30-second ad spot and the media that has already decided the primary victor a year ahead of time. A caucus system would also allow liberals who have no voice in the national media an opportunity to organize and at least have a voice in democracy.

This article makes a Clinton tank sound like a force of nature -- not the changing of minds of tons of voters -- and I pick a bone with that. I pick a bone not only because it discounts real decisions, but it glosses over the real reasons why someone might not vote for Clinton.

For example, liberals are not going to be angry about the Iran vote because she is too "centrist," as Shapiro suggests; the vast majority of the public (certainly Democratic primary voters) don't want such a war, so it's not centrist to push for it.

And while Bill and the Clinton name might be a problem, it is obviously a greater asset. If she weren't Bill's wife, she would be a nobody and running even with Biden in the polls (if she could have ever become a Senator, which is unlikely). Articles on this very site cite the fact that many voters -- particularly African Americans -- support Clinton on the sole basis that she is Bill's wife.

The reasons why voters now casually supporting Clinton may change their mind in the next few months is that Clinton is riding on inevitability, not enthusiastic support. She has nothing that she's going to offer in the next few months that is going to excite the base. She's already shown that she will not be remotely liberal, on war, retirement, healthcare and other important issues; she's going to just play around the GOP frame and keep the status quo relatively safe. Given her lead in the polls, one can't help but guess that her opponents will exploit this weakness -- a vulnerability that has everything to do with millions of individual decisions that individual voters will make before January, not simply the downside of being too good a campaigner, as Shapirio implies.