I am having a difficult time reading to what I call "Bashing" of a canidate. Of all the remarks I have read I really hear alot of ANGER and yes VENOM for Hillary, I must admit I am not as well-versed on politics as some of you or can express myself as eloquent as most but I am a Democrat through and through. I ADMIRE ALL the Democratic Candidates, each for a different reason. I wish I could take a little from all of them Richardson,Edwards, Obama, and we would have the perfect candidate for 2008.

I keep going back to the fact that Hillary is a WOMAN WITH BRAINS and that is her main problem with most of you. Moderate, Liberal, Leaning Left, hasn't apologized for her stance on the Iraq war, how many of you had a definite stance on the war in the beginning? I know for myself I felt it was wrong to INVADE a country BUT what IF the evidence was true???? I waffled back and forth til the evidence started showing we were duped.

It seems to me as you pick her apart you except more from her than any other candidate or could it be she has been under the microscope more than the other candidates??

perhaps the moderate label fits here but authentic? it is as calculated as her outfits. with hillary we dont compare her to other candidates, but to other versions of her presented to us over the years. when there are too many makeovers, it is time to rethink the entire project. who will we really get if she is elected. the trials and tribulations are hers built over the years by the clintons themselves. what i object to the most are the tightly controlled events that are planned around her. even here in our town there was one just a ways away but we only found out after she had left. so carefully staged, so carefully adored by the select few who were invited. no, i want someone with a bit more openness. the control is the message for now and it is not a good one. one asks what is she afraid of. this candidacy was in the planning for a long time? tell that to the nyvoters who thought they were voting for a senator. how cute , how coy. obama still has my vote. hey, i like very much this articulate guy who seems open and available. not the scared little mrs. hiding in the corner pretending to be a moderate.

My sentiments, exactly.

legacy candidates - this is a great term and i will use it many times. so clean and clear. and in arguing for the hillary label by the author of this article, what could be clearer than the mixup that could occur with this legacy candidate. yes lets keep the two separate, at least for awhile anyway. so hillary it is for now.

That would be 'reverse carpet-bagger'

As much as I would love to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination, I would be equally happy if she were to remain Senator for New York State. She does what's best for New York State. As Senator she has saved army bases and brought in much needed government contracts to Upstate factory cities -- regardless of political contributions.

My point is that Senator Clinton does her job well, and that if what's she's done for New York State is any indication, she would do an excellent job for the United States. It's just a shame the New York State would lose her representation.

the new "moderate" Democrat?

Senator Clinton will cause a schism within the party if she is nominated, and will lose the general election, even to one of the Dick Tracy villains running currently on the other side...

The Democrat had better wake up. If they nominate Hillary they'll have a problem. Too many Democratic voters- and I'm one of them- just get the creeps from Hillary. Yeah, people in New York will vote for her. But most of the rest of the country will not.

Hillary's a moderate, all right. A moderate Republican.

There really is no excuse for this Hillary commercial. Salon, you don't think she has enough money to pay for her advertising?

In addition to the many reasons listed above, I don't like Hillary because I don't want a repeat of '04, where lots of Dems voted for Kerry in the primary because he "was the most likely to defeat Bush". We all know how that worked out.

Republicans *hate* her. Right or wrong, sexist or not, Republicans who would otherwise stay home because they are pissed at Bush will come out of the woodwork to vote against Hillary. I spend a lot of time in Red states, and I'm consistently surprised at how much hate exists for Hillary with these people. Imagine how much us lefties hate Rumsfeld and you'll start to get the idea.

Another note: Due to the "vote straight party" button on our new voting machines, the Democrats in my state, Illinois, retained the governorship, and conquered the house and senate. It's only been two months and it's verging on unmitigated disaster. They're putting through disastrous tax legislation during tax time! Is it to pay off the highest state debt in the nation? No! It's to increase spending by 25%!

Fortunately the states don't have the ability to declare war, but the abuses of this all-dem state government are incredibly similar to the all republican federal version.

In short: I'll vote Republican in the general election if I don't believe in the ideas of the Democratic candidate with the nomination. Way better to have a Republican president and a Democratic congress, than to give complete control over to a party with no new ideas.

Like most things-- it's only good in moderation. Hillary is prudent to a fault, and moderate to the extreme. It is her over-zealous prudence that leads to her extreme moderation-- that is where the somewhat unfair 'cold and calculating' slam has its roots. The problem comes when her prudence is political, not functional, as with her Iraq vote.

She is best fitted to lead the Senate, playing her political savvy and practicality off of Obama's drive and vision. Her 'step-by-step' philosophy makes her exceptionally qualified to run a Dem Senate under a Dem president.

The role of president is to lead, and this administration better than any has shown that it is the ambition of the president which limits their power, with all other political bodies having tangential influence at best. With a visionary like Obama in the WH, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the jr. Senator from New York, USA, can make the incremental compromises she is so good at to achieve Obama's ambitiously progressive agenda(which includes National Healthcare).

Some odd points: Edwards may be a rich tort lawyer, but he was not born rich. As for his portrayed 'greed' for his settlement recompense, all I can say is: Don't hate the Player, Hate the Game.

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich should make their runs to make their points(Edwards is the only possibly viable candidate among them), then fall in line to support the nominee. They should then be appointed to high-level administration positions, such as Sec. of State, Sec. of the Interior, and, For Kucinich, perhaps head of the FTC or Sec. of Commerce.

Time was, cabinets and administrations were stocked with high-profile states-people. What he have now is a plethora of qualified states-people ( god I HATE being PC) who can do real good real fast once a Dem is in the WH-- something we will desperately need.

Obama's vision for President, Clarke/Richardson's experience for VP(for Iraq), Hillary for Senate Majority Leader, Edwards for Sec. of Interior, Kucinich for Sec. of Commerce.... And what does this all require? A CLEAN campaign. Not squeaky-clean, Sesame Street, make-you-sick clean, but not cuthroat I-can-never-work-with-you-again dirty, either.