Lots of us out here support you 100% Senator Clinton! I would love to see you become president.

Well, before this turns into a Woodstock love-in, let me just say this-- I'm no fan on Hillary because: 1) I have real reservations about her oddly cautious and tentative approach to the Iraq quagmire and; 2) Based on recent polls,I have severe doubts about her electability.

Should she win the Democratic nomination, I fear she will just be another in a long line of Democratic candidates for which I have had to hold my nose and vote. And frankly, I'm just a little tired of having to SETTLE for yet one more fatally flawed candidate who got where they are because they know how to play the nomination game and who goes down in flames at the polls because that knowledge was their sole asset.

No President whether Republican nor Democrat will do a damn thing about Iraq. I thought you would have realized that by now. Any President will be looking to whatever political leverage 'doing something' with Iraq can used in relation to the 2010 Congressional elections. It doesn't matter a great deal whether that President is Hillary, Obama or some random Republican twit. I sometimes wonder why you people have utterly no perspective on history.

I know some people don't trust Hillary because she is always so prepared, pundits call her stiff and practiced. I always feel like we are seeing two different people. I like it that she is prepared. I don't have a problem that she is always the smartest person in the room ,I'm sure she has been since first grade, I find comfort in that. Others critize her for being overly ambitious..please. Who has ever become president without ambition? Now more than ever we need a smart, competent, person who will draw other smart, competent people to public service to try and help put things back together again. She is more centrist than the left likes and more business friendly. I think of her as a transition character who will be centrist therefore more able to reach compromises that might get government working again. Eight years of Hillary getting things fixed and then eight more years of a more progressive president might turn this country into a better place to live and gain back some of our lost respect in the World.

Are people paying attention to that?

Plus, she really offends with that "sectarian civil war" crap, which is most decidedly not what's going on there.

Regardless of my personal opinion on Hillary Clinton, I think this was a really good interview. Shapiro offered a good mix of personal (How do you feel about being called Hillary?) policy (How many troops will be left in Iraq?) and follow up (What have you learned in the senate specifically?) questions. Clinton's responses were substantive. I learned about the candidate, including how she communicates and how she thinks about the office of the president. These things are, in many ways, as important as particular policy decisions.

If most political writing were like this we would have a healthier democracy. I salute Shapiro for his interview and Clinton for her eloquence.

It would be notable if Hillary Clinton were not the consumate political professional by now.

The real questions are: how much change does the electorate desire and how much change does our survival and prosperity require?

If we only need to shift our bearings by degree, she's probably just as good or slightly better than McCain or Thompson.

But let it not be said that her candidacy heralds any kind of momentous sea-change from the policies and preferences of the Bush administration.

The greatest distinctions between George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton have been those of intelligence and competence.

...I note the complete lack of BS. Her factually based, level headed common sense could play very well in the election. This is not something that either Kerry or Gore had to any degree.

Wally pitched a few nice slow ones for hillary to swing at. I guess he's angling for a job.

It's also interesting that they're dredging up the electability kool-aid again. As was noted in these forums some time back, a sandwich is electable. kerry was electable until he (arguably) lost. bush was electable, even in 2006, having (arguably) won twice. It isn't a particularly high bar to pass.

Support her, if you must, because you believe in her but not because you think it is the clever stance.

I am the first person to admit that what we need is expertise. Likeability shouldn't be a factor.

But the fact is, Hillary is NOT more qualified than the other candidates. The ONLY advantage she has in my mind over the others is that she'd bring Bill with her. I would vote for him in a second and really, I would very much appreciate having them as a twofer.

However, if I could get Al Gore in the white house, there would be no contest. Hillary even with Bill is not an Al Gore.

The problem with ALL presidential candidates is that they have become so blatantly opportunistic that they reek with the stench of ambition. It causes an immediate and extreme revulsion. I know few well educated, independent smart women (a major demographic these days) who would vote for Hillary-- her positions on Israel and on the Iraq War have made her unsupportable. Unfortunately, John Edwards and Barack Obama can be tarred with the self-promoting brush as well (though Barack had the good sense to oppose the ridiculous "war"). And of course, each of the republicans is more nakedly ambitious than all of the Democrats combined. Having been abused as we have by Bush and Rove and their ilk for the last 8 years (though I never voted for the idiot), will even the most ethnocentric, ignorant Americans tolerate endlessly blind ambition again?

ONLY Al Gore can emerge from this mess as being someone truly dedicated to the idea of public service. He was raised to be president, it's true ---- but he was raised to be president in a different time and place, with different ideals. He was raised to be president by parents who believed he had something to offer and who believed politics was a noble profession involving sacrifice and courage, not opportunities for wealth, prestige and fame.

None of this matters of course, because when Stockholm casts their vote for president by giving Al the Nobel Prize this fall, the election will pretty much be decided. ALL Americans are dazzled by the Nobel Prize. It's the absolute proof that you are smart and good and worthy. And the contrast to the idiocy of Bush will be overwhelming. When the country is brought to its knees by incompetent leadership, will it be possible to resist the promise of Gore? He'll run, and he'll win and the horrors of the Bush administration will somehow have begun to be set right. Hillary and Barack and John can sit back and plan future fundraising efforts. Al will work on fixing things. There will be a redemption. We can only hope.