We know Hillary has had enough practice and accumulated enough knowledge over the years to ace an interview like this. What wasn't asked were incisive followup questions.

Example: When Shapiro brought up the issue of two families controlling the White House for 24-28 years, Hillary gave us a standard "judge me on my own merit" answer which is reasonable. At this point, Shapiro should have asked the question why term limits are advisable and why it's good to not concentrate the power in two families - It's not just the people at the very top who can cause stagnation in fresh ideas at the top, but also their close network of advisers and friends. What Shapiro should have asked if what Hillary has done to bring in enough fresh blood to give other Democrats a chance at showing what they can do instead of the usual Clintonites.

Hillary also gave a reasonable answer to the pullout of troops. But what Shapiro should have asked is why Hillary did not know THEN what she knows now about the iraq war because the NIE was available to her back then and Code Pink and others had access to her and she got to hear directly from them concerns which she acknowledges as KNOWING NOW. This question is relevant because it goes to understanding why a leader makes decisions and if she really learned from her mistakes. Scott Ritter was telling anyone who would listen not to fall for the Bushes.

Another question: If Hillary wants to prove herself as a leader, why did she not take on a bigger role in 2004 elections since getting rid of Bush was something any self respect Democratic LEADER should have considered their duty.

This question is relevant because it goes to indicate how a leader can persuade others to go along for a progressive agenda. LBJ was no liberal, but he did a better job than many liberal Presidents would have at the time in getting civil rights legislation passed through. Leadership is important. And a person like Hillary has shown a fear of looking weak. SO by acting strong she is ironically showing a lack of leadership.

Dean lost a bitter primary and he still tirelessly canvassed the country for Kerry. Hillary has no record of defending progressives who were fighting the lonely fight against the Bush followers regarding the war. She pretty much spearheaded a few issues, but rarely came to help of other progressive Democrats because she was afraid of risking her chances for a 2008 Presidency. She put that above her duty to the country.

Hillary will be an improvment over Bush on many other positions, but so will other Democratic leaders who don't have her Iraq war baggage.

Best way to get rid of mice and especially big fat rats. There is a site by the same name. It takes a couple of batteries and is safe for humans. Kind of like an electric chair for rats. Except that it is instantaneous. It looks like a shoe box with an opening on one end where the rat enters. The bait is placed near the closed end. There is a metal plate on the base which electrocutes the rat INSTANTLY. You pick up the zapper and empty it by tilting the open end towards the garbage. Best damn device.

Lieberman bemoans the fact that he has been maligned over ONE ISSUE - the Iraq war. What I wish Shapiro asked him was this

"Senator Lieberman, you have made some noise about not supporting Democrats in the 2008 election over one issue - the Iraq war. You also have made comments questioning the seriousness of the party over one issue in the past. So why are you complaining when others do the same to you?"

Another question I wish he was asked "Mr Lieberman, one of your talking points during your independent phase was how the Michael Moores and other fringe elements of the party seemed to be holding more sway. But you seem to have no problem being chummy with the likes of Sean Hannity on his radio program. Do you seriously think Sean Hannity is someone who is more aligned with your values than the average Democratic primary voter in CT?"

This is the problem when Democrats try to play campaign strategist. Just sit back and enjoy the video and stop worrying about what the so called crossover demographics think. Anyone who would confuse this with a muslim terrorist association would probably not vote for Obama anyway.

It's this kind of mentality that has cost Democrats elections in the past decade. They put up compromise candidates who end up losing anyway and end up hurting the progressive cause down the road by reinforcing right wing frames of issues.

The link still works. I think it's great overpaid political pros get exposed by amateurs who do superior work.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/16/154736/864/308/291573

Landrieu supported Lieberman even after he was no longer the Democratic nominee for Senate. And in return, Lieberman, who became Homeland Security Committee chair does nothing to find ou what went wrong during Katrina and doesn't hold the guilty parties responsible, presumably, to be on the President's good side so they can jointly promote misadventures in the middle east. Lieberman is a vile man who has stayed quiet on a national matter just to protect the goodwill he earned on some silly foreign issue. And Landrieu supported him and continues to support him.

If the Democrats have any shame and want to disprove Nader's assertion that there is not enough difference between them and the Republicans, they will strip Lieberman of this chairmanship once they achieve a real majority.