Hillary is also an authoritarian, elitist, imperialist-- just like our current occupants. Not sick, twisted, incompetent authoritarian imperialism like those guys, but that is still her underlying philosophy of US world governance.

There is nothing "authentically moderate" about Hillary or any other member of the Democratic Leadership Council. Any rag that publishes such nonsense is pandering to the right wing fascists who have bought the Democratic Party.

Salon's not talking about Pelosi/Murtha anymore? Nothing good to say?

I Walter Shapiro 100% about Hillary. It is a pleasure to find someone with the courage to write something positive about Hillary. She has become the whipping girl of the media. It is interesting to see how that rightwing crackpot Drudge puts something on his website that trashes Hillary such as her speech in Selma and immediately it is picked up by the mainstream media.

The fact is that Hillary has been an achiever at school, as a lawyer and Senator-but you would never know it from the mainstream media-which is misogynistic and cannot accept the idea of a woman president.

The media euphoria over Obama`s candidacy enrages me. Not only does not does he have a paper thin resume but he became Senator only by default when his opponent dropped and he was replaced by that rightwing crackpot Alan Keyes.And a white Senator with the same resume would never be a contender for the presidency.

In my opinion if Obama were nominated the Democrats would lose all 50 states. I believe Americans would elect a black as president someone like Colin Powell where his race is an afterthought. But with Obama it is the centerpiece of his candidacy and I cannot see Americans voting for someone with a Muslim sounding name, who attends an Afro-centric church with a controversial minister. There is still too much that is unknown about Obama for the Democratic party to take a chance and nominate him just because the limousine liberals adore him. The Democrats have a very good chance to win 2008 and they should not blow it.

I spent many hours fund-raising for Democrats in both 2004 and 2006. However, if Hillary is the nominee I won't lift a finger. I detest the woman, not because she is a woman but because she is an enabler of Bush policies and was an enabler to the worst impulses of her husband. She has always impressed me as all about ambition. Her pandering is so obvious! In her politics she is a slicker version of Joseph Lieberman. She is not authentic anything IMO. As long as we can keep substantial Democratic majorities in Congress I won't feel bad if a Republican gains the White House again. For me it is anybody but Hillary!

If Clinton at her core believes that she was right in ceding her consitutional power as a Senator to declare war over to a militaristic, dishonest, hegemonistic executive, then she has learned nothing in her life in politics, as a politician, or as a Senator. She betrayed the American people and does not deserve to be President. That the MSM refuses to ask her about her vote from that perspective is just one more sad nail in the Republic's coffin.

"Hillary, I want to be your intern." and handing her a cigar. That's class.

BTW, I favor Obama right now. But, if one of the others gets the nomination, I'm supporting them 100%. Remember the premise that Gore was no better than Bush? That turned out well.

Wondering why the author needs to comment on her olive suit and "scooped" blouse. This is certainly not part of articles on male candidates. Just something to think about. It seems rather obvious to me that it's inappropriate, and calls attention to fashion, something women focus on, not men. She is not a model or fashion spokesperson. She's running for president! There are more important things to call the reader's attention to.

As I read, I found myself thinking a moderate is a good choice, Democrats will have an uphill battle if they want to win over the far right radicals, and those people have a proven ability to get their choice elected.

Then I got to thinking about my friends, and for that matter myself, and how we will be motivated to vote for a Democratic Candidate.

First and formost, we are looking for someone who is NOT moderate. I do think the President needs to be practical and pragmatic, in fact I think that GW Bush is neither, and that is most of the problem.

Idiology is a great starting point for a negotiation, and that is where Ms Clinton fails completely. She seems to be taking the Position, as a starting point, that the radicals are never going to move. I don't want a candidate or President who starts from the middle and gets pulled to the right. I want a President who starts from the left, and pulls the conservatives toward the center.

Someone with Personal Power, and a willingness to moderate a position to reach an acceptable compromise.

Mr Edwards does not have the personal power, Ms Clinton does not have the ideology. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has both, but he lacks recognition. Barak Obama has both, if he has the "will" to win, I think we have a winner in him.

This posting sounds like Shapiro, the writer, is embarking on a public relations campaign on behalf of candidate Hillary.

Shapiro's assessment of Hillary is as generic as what Hillary has offered to her base so far. Shapiro attributes this so-called generic approach to Hillary's "authentic prudent moderate" stand. I have to say this is a laughable defense.

The purpose of primary election is to provide voters--the party faithful--an opportunity to study, examine, assess, compare each candidate’s personality, position, conviction, principles, action plan.

We don’t need a candidate who hides in her so-called “authentic prudent moderate” label so she doesn’t need to voice her position, dare to speak from her heart, because she thinks her bold and honest stand may alienate certain imagined voters. We need candidates to be as clear, bold, honest, skillful as possible to speak their minds and express their hearts. So, we as the voters can decide who should be the party’s nominee and who deserves to be the resident of the White House.

To Shapiro, it is an act of intellectual honesty, to me Hillary’s reluctant to recant her Iraq vote is a calculated mistake on top of another calculated mistake, namely the vote for this bloody, unnecessary, costly foreign policy blunder.

From Shapiro’s eyes, Hillary possesses hard-earned wisdom, which comes with a sense of political prudence and caution; to me Hillary’s wisdom is misplaced for her own self-serving ambition, her sense of political prudence and caution has been best reflected in her overwhelming desire to win and win at any cost.

In addition to our contrasting view toward Hillary, I would like to correct some of Shapiro’s word usage when describing her. I don’t think the word “prudent” is correct, I think it should be replaced with “timid, calculating.” Likewise, “moderate” should change to “do or say nothing extraordinary to either win or not to alienate any type of voters.” Furthermore, even though this is purely personal opinion. I have to say I think I am right. I think “authentic” is completely opposite word to describe Hillary. The better word should be "packaged" or “jaded.”