I don't know what the results of the polling will be, if any. I know I was dismayed and demoralized at their capitulation. RealName put it well here...

There is no leadership. There are only self created problems. The Dems set out to make Iraq not the most important issue but the ONLY issue.

And by backpedaling/surrendering, they blew it, big time. But the whole national security-over-all policy is a trap -- say the Democrats manage a broader victory in 2008, and a terrorist attack happens during a Democratic administration's tenure.

The GOP will scream that the Democrats failed the country, that their weakness emboldened the enemy and brought on the attack, and clueless voters will likely believe them. Just as if the GOP wins in 2008, and a terrorist attack occurs, they'll shout down any Democrats who cry foul, attacking their patriotism, urging everybody to support the New Leader. It's just an issue that the Democrats aren't equipped to win.

Never more has "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" had more resonance, even as it gets ignored in favor of "Be afraid, be very afraid." It's why boldness is what the Democrats need desperately, versus equivocating, capitulating, or attempting to do GOP-style fearmongering.

For the Democrats to show leadership, they need to get out of the trap of national security politicking that is the meat and drink of the GOP. The Dems need to become strong on the areas where the GOP is weak -- economics and social justice, in particular, rather than simply being weak on everything and counting on the fickle wisdom of focus groups to guide them.

Does any campaign that doesn't live up to your expectations betray a "sense of entitlement to the presidency"?

I'm sorry if I'm confusing you. I just think that anybody running for the presidency owes it to the people they're hoping to rule to actually run a good campaign based on solid ideas and to present a coherent vision for the future, what they have in mind, instead of serving up treacle and Kool-Aid and hoping that just not being a band of ogres like the Bush League is enough to make them look "good."

A candidacy based solely on connections, name recognition, and clout is an empty one -- Hillary's just not a very good candidate; maybe the fire'll come out after the primaries, assuming she's anointed as the candidate.

The way a Democrat should distinguish themselves from the GOP opposition isn't to be like them, but to be different from them, to offer a differing vision for our future, not the same, or holding the line; they should offer real difference -- and that's different to the left of them, not the right.

And, unfortunately, the Clinton campaign just isn't showing that, and I think they're trusting too much in the connections and the clout and the "less bad" acquiescence that passes for choice in the system as currently configured. Treacle's nice, if not very substantial.

Maybe the Democrats have left behind their left wing once and for all, and are, under the tender auspices of Rahm Emanuel and the other DINOs and blue dog Democrats, planning for a right-wing Democratic party that pays bland lip service to progress while embracing the status quo.

If somebody's a frontrunner, however, it should be from the strength of the candidate's vision and ideas, not from their fame or their wealth or connections, don't you think? Are Hillary's campaign ideas so strong that they've persuaded you this early in the game? Do you really think she's running a solid campaign? I told you why I don't support her (e.g., she's a DINO, a Democrat In Name Only; automatic disqualifier for a Democratic candidate, or should be, anyway); do you support her? Why? How has she inspired you?

My issue with your post was solely the notion that you could look inside her heart and tell that she felt a sense of "entitlement" to the presidency, which I consider an entirely unfair interpretation.

Well, of course I can't know her heart -- I'm commenting on Salon, so yeah I'll be entirely unfair; but looking at her history, both distant and recent, it's not promising. I'm not a Hillary Hater -- I've always felt bad that people don't like her just because she was an ambitious First Lady, versus the "stand by your man" type usually expected. I have no objection to her ambition; anybody running is ambitious.

But I'd like to see her campaign show some real fire, and I just don't see it, sadly, and I don't know why they're not showing that fire, why they're being so cautious and careful. You know who was cautious and careful? Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Losers, both.

I see triangulation and stilted moderation, which ends up at best being a tactical victory for the GOP, given how far they've steered the government to the right -- and at worst, an actual victory for the GOP, if they run a strong enough candidate against her.

The Democrats truly, desperately need to stand apart from the GOP. Bill Clinton's adroit Third Way political three-card monte isn't going to fly the way it flew in the 90s, given what the Bushies have done since 2000. I'm almost reminded of that electoral parody from the Simpsons (paraphrasing):

"The politics of failure aren't working; we're going to make them work again."