I have always found it difficult to understand why the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, are the chosen demons of conservatives. It's not as though they are wildly leftist or extreme in their positions. I can understand why Bill aroused the ire of the rigidly upright for his bad conduct with women, but aside from the ill-advised tea and cookies comment, what did Hillary ever do to be so thoroughly despised?

Bernstein did absolutely nothing to sell his book when he was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer, who despite his name is one of the dimmest and least exciting interviewers on TV. The quotes flashed on the screen were written in leaden prose ("sprightly written"? Only if your standards for biography are quite low).

More revealingly, Bernstein claimed that Clinton had concealed her "essential self." It's an intriguing charge (though you wonder what politician hasn't done so), but when asked to explain what he meant, he could only blather about Hillary's childhood being far less idyllic than she claimed in her own book, and that there was perhaps physical abuse.

Having done publicity tours across the US and in Europe for my own books, I was surprised that Bernstein didn't seem to have any solid answers that could back up his charge. He could have been a first-time author unprepared for the spotlight. He came across as insipid, insincere, and incapable of analysis or reflection--little better than a talking head breathlessly filling us in on the latest Paris Hilton non-story.

I've always seen her as a standard modern politico, the issue is she was first lady. I always believe if she was in congress BEFORE Clinton had been elected Pres. Most would accept her for what she is a Politico. She flops bad (most do) she spins poorly (most do) she lacks a basic ability to be honest/real (most do). She reminds me of what you see in life. A basic HACK.

Now her backstory is more fun, filled with drama, etc.. (whitewater, monica, vince foster, etc..) But, I go back to my basic premise if she were elected to congress in 1990 as a rep for ARK, she would be a solid serving hack in congress and someone who would have run for Senate in 94-98 in ARK and we would know her as a HACK from ARK. who was married to the President. The President would own what he does and she would own her votes. Instead their is this prevese logic that she owns her votes and his personal life without getting his political capital. She has the worst of all worlds. I think she should wait until 2012 and let Iraq get beyond her. She like Bush are both in total denial about how they are stuck in Iraq.

The point is, it doesn't matter to the right. Just pick a big fat target and demonize the shit out of it 24/7 unto forever. It's called constructing your enemy. IF the most right wing conservative Democrat in the country had been elected president in 1992 the reaction would have been the same. It's not about rationality or sanity it's about winning.

As RealName suggested, it wouldn't matter if she were the most right-wing conservative Democrat out there. The fact is, she can kick the Republicans' asses and look good doing it. I once told a New York Post reporter covering a Labor Day event at which Sen. Clinton was the featured speaker that I would pay good money to see Hillary vs. Dubya in a debate, even if it were hosted by Fox News. In a battle of wits, Dubya would have been crushed like a Volkswagen Bug being run over by an Abrams tank. The Republicans know the same applies to any of the current group of candidates, and this is why they hound her 24/7/365.

The result is that otherwise reasonable Democrats are hesitant to endorse Hillary as a candidate, knowing that the opposition has already done its research years ago, polished it to a high gloss, and is ready to begin the inevitable smear campaign on a moments' notice. What's worse, this smear campaign will likely serve to reinforce prejudices against Mrs. Clinton that a large number of Americans already hold. It is as if somebody has stolen your playbook and handed it to the other team the night before the Super Bowl.

The good news is, as Shapiro suggests, that all this nonsense about Hillary's alleged past is way, way past it's sell-by date. It might have been interesting fifteen years ago, but nowadays, there is nothing new to be learned about the junior senator from New York that we don't already "know."

" ... it becomes tricky for Democratic primary voters to simultaneously revere the foreign policy of the Clinton administration and excoriate the New York senator for following the advice of Bill Clinton in casting her Iraq vote."

Uh, no. Interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, attempted then abandoned intervention in Somalia, valiant and nearly successful attempts to take out bin Laden and punish Saddam, the Iraqi no-fly zones, sincere Middle East negotiations - all smart.

Handing Smirky the Usurper power to attack a nation that had done nothing to us and had no plans to do anything (for which the evidence was overwhelming by the summer of 2002)?

Dumb, stupid, ridiculous, inexcusable and borderline treasonous.

See? Making that distinction is "tricky" only for Beltway robots who can't see the leaves for the chlorophyll.

For us out here in reality land, it's very, very easy.

"The right" hates her because she’s on the other side. Each side hates the other side, equally from what I observe. That’s politics, folks – hating the other side. Useful for political purposes, and like many things we should be ashamed of, quite fun.

Everybody on the other side (and a large portion of your own side) is hatable if you emphasize certain aspects of his or her personality. The right focuses on Hillary-the-feminazi, Hillary-the-socialist, Hillary-the-bossy-scold, and Hillary-the-scheming-opportunist. Sometimes all of these at once, sometimes one or the other. Sometimes Hillary does something that seems to confirm one of these archetypes but disprove another; then the one that doesn’t fit is simply ignored. Just about everything she does fits at least one like a glove, and her enemies are off and running with the correct condemnation. The criticism sticks because there is a grain or more of truth, and because these character traits are inherently intensely annoying.

There’s a well-established lexicon of Hillary-hating, and it’s easy to pick and choose the applicable terminology. This is true of every prominent political figure and most famous people in general. John Edwards, for instance, is, among other things, the "Breck girl." Every hair-related thing that he does will be fodder for those on the other side, which you think he would have figured out by now. If he gets ridiculed for $400 haircuts, it’s not a sign that his enemies are pathological. It’s just the way Edwards-hating works. Obviously the Bush and Cheney-hating lexicons are particularly rich, they having been at the apex of power so long. Hate has so many fascinating variants and manifestations: there are very different and specific forms of hatred directed at, off the top of my head, Oprah Winfrey, Ann Coulter, Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton and Clarence Thomas.

The ritualistic phrases employed by each side to demonize the other do involve thought, but the thinking happened long ago, by other people. This letters page exhibits a related phenomenon – Hillary-hating-hating (the right hates her because they’re irrational or because she’s a winner). Perhaps Hillary is following a subtle strategy: By triggering hatred in the right, she’s signaling her worth to the right-haters. Enemy of my enemy and all that.