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.

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.

I cringe a bit every time I hear "Hillary" instead of Clinton. I do think it is diminutive. But I understand first that she is trying to differentiate herself from her husband and second that she is fashioning herself as a brand. Given her rather stuffy image, I can see how she might embrace the diminutive whenever possible. She's not the first to do it: plenty of folks liked "Ike" when "Eisenhower" was an unmanageable and uncomfortably German sounding name.

I think, however, that in the end this will backfire for her. Perhaps it's a deficit of imagination on my part, but I find it very hard to envision a President "Hillary" representing our nation at a G-8 summit or delivering a State of the Union address. I can't conceive of a President "Hillary" Memorial Library or a statue of "Hillary" gracing the lawns of the capitol. If she's going to embrace the diminutive to brand herself for the election, she's going to have to make sure it doesn't keep its grip on her long after she's ready for it go away. And given that women start out with a disadvantage in that arena, it seems quite a gamble indeed to me.

Intelligence and competence as the major difference between our former president Bill Clinton and our current president George W. Bush is quite important, considering where we are now with GWB. Iraq is an issue but it is not the only issue. GWB is in the process of dismantling our constitution by using the war as cover for a presidential power grab. This is about the only thing he has done competently.

However, if GWB were intelligent, perhaps he would not have been so easily manipulated by the neocons he chose to advise him. Would he still be a shallow, power-hungry bastard? Surely. I am not sure he would be any more dangerous.

Whether or not we would have gone to war with Iraq if Bill Clinton had had a third term is easy to speculate upon but impossible to determine. Whether or not Gore would have gone to war with Iraq is also impossible to determine. Whether or not Kerry could have extricated us from the mess is also impossible to determine. If I had a dollar for every American who supported the war but now opposes it, I would be a rich woman indeed.

The real questions that matter are where all the candidates stand on a number of issues and can we trust them to be truthful about the stands they say they will take. In other words, when their lips are moving, are they lying?

In this interview at least, Senator Clinton seems straightforward. While the interview was a good one, I keep wondering when anyone in the media is going to really try to pin the candidates down on what they each will do to rollback those decisions -- like the suspension of the right of habeas corpus -- that are much more of a threat to our freedom than any terrorist attack or even the war itself.

I hate to sound utterly cynical, but I too doubt any of them will truly withdraw all our troops from Iraq. Bluntly, there is too much oil there. I suspect we will continue our conquest of oil nations no matter which party is in power and no matter who holds the presidency. Bill Richardson talks impetuously, he promises the moon, and he has been caught lying more recently than any of them.

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 am in agreement on all of this. Furthermore, in contrast with the "smart guys" in the Bush administration – Wolfowitz comes to mind, in particular – she is not so blinded by ideology and so impressed with how smart she is that she is unable to learn from mistakes.

In my opinion, Hillary's biggest drawback is that she seems to approach a political fight leading with a compromise instead of settling for a compromise in the end. This is a problem I have with the most Democrats these days, and against slash-and-burn Republicans it is a losing strategy. It is why they come off like wimps.

I also see far too little recognition among Democrats of the very serious damage that the Bush administration has wrought on the foundations of American democracy - some of which was already underway long before Bush. Bush is a symptom of what can happen when the imperial presidency is in place. I'd like to see a Democrat (or a Republican, for that matter) who would convince me that one of their major goals is to reduce the power of the presidency: No signing statements. Unqualified denunciation of the 'unitary executive' horseshit that makes bastards like John Yoo cream their jeans. A promise to never inappropriately invoke 'executive privilege'. No wars without Congressional declaration of same. Maybe with these kinds of issues on the table, a Democrat in the White House could put together a comprimise coalition with people like McCain to bring in real campaign finance reform - with public financing of presidential and congressional races.