The next time Sen. Clinton agrees to an interview, here are some questions that you might want to ask her:

The foreign policy advisors that surround you, as far as I can tell, unanimously supported the Iraq war. Do you have anyone on your foreign policy team who saw through George Bush at the beginning? If not, what does this say about the foreign policy team that you are building?

It appears that the Bush administration is intent on provoking war with Iran, and you yourself have engaged in Iran war talk ("no options are off the table" and the like). How do you propose to deal with Iran? And what would the consequences to our troops in Iraq be if a conflict breaks out?

A group that has been given sanctuary by the Kurdistan provincial government has been launching attacks into Turkey, and Turkey has been threatening to respond militarily. How would you head off a conflict between the Turks and the Kurds?

One of your chief advisors personally profits from the union-busting activities of the firm he heads, even though he has "recused himself" from this work. Even George Bush made Karl Rove sell his direct-mail firm. Why do you allow this massive conflict of interest?

Do you believe that Third World countries should be forced to use most of their resources to repay investors for past loans, and to sell off their resources for private exploitation? If not, how would you reform international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank?

You tried to reform health care in 1993, and it didn't work. Are you going to take another shot at it, and what did you learn from previous failures? Also, considering the health care systems of other countries, which do you think offers the most lessons to US reformers?

Your opponent, Sen. Edwards, has been talking a lot about poverty, but we haven't heard as much from you. How would you address the problem of persistent poverty in the US? Are you satisfied with the welfare reform enacted during your husband's administration? What changes would you make?

If you don't already know this, spend a few minutes on Google and read for yourself. Her rhetoric is as terrifying as Bush's.

The choice is yours.

Two problems with your analysis:

(a) Not all Americans are dazzled by the Nobel Prize. Are people dazzled by Carter, who was awarded a Nobel in 2002? No, the people who already hated Carter concluded that the Nobel Prize had become a tool of America-hating European leftist elitsts. They will have the same reaction if Gore gets it.

(b) Gore is not going to run. He is a happy and functional human being now, who can see quite clearly what political campaigning does to your soul. I'm happy for him. And if he ran, I guarantee you you wouldn't like him as much as you do now, because the process is corrupt and corrupts everything it touches. If you don't like the current crop of candidates and haven't for some time, maybe it's time to ask what is wrong with the process that produces them.

Dear Editor,

It is interesting that the author brings up the question of a two family oligarchy running the White House for 24 years. But if you look at the last fifty five years, with the exception of 1964, the Republican ticket has featured a Nixon, Dole or Bush in every election since 1952. While I am not suggesting any bias in this particular article, I find it odd that the media never seem to worry about republican dynasties, and the generally listless administration of Bush Senior was never raised as an issue for Bush junior to contend with; in fact it was touted as a bonus that the young lad had such an experienced family to call upon on.

Sincerely,

Kevin Hill

Looking over the wreckage of the W administration and the cautionary tale it spins for dynasts, I wonder why on earth the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, failed to provide in the Constitution a ban against blood relatives or spouses serving as presidents. Didn't they foresee how inherited or married wealth and influence would eventually lead to the sad situation we have today, viz. the House of Bush and the House of Clinton?

I could come to support Senator Clinton as a candidate for President, but my biggest concern centers on the kind of people with which the Senator has chosen to surround herself in her campaign; her staff seems to be heavily populated the same old class of corporate-oriented political consultants that have served Democrats (and the country) so poorly in the past couple decades. How does she defend that? What gives her confidence in these people? I wish Mr. Shapiro had asked the Senator about that. Otherwise, this was a good (if too short) interview.

I liked HRC as First Lady and feel that the only reason her health care initiative didn't get off the ground was because she/they were not prepared for (who could be?) the kind of right-wing media onslaught they'd face in that instance or later. (Why she/they never answered in simple terms ... i.e., "No, it doesn't." the line the right-wing scare tactics trumpeted over and over about how the government would be telling you which doctor you'd be going to (and they're at it again with contemporary universal health care discussions), is beyond me, but I digress.

Anyway, I like Hillary less now than I did then in part because I really don't sense that she's sincere. Ambition, even with smarts, and no heart, just doesn't cut it. Essentially, she and Condi seem to me to be cut from the same cloth. Being well-prepared, although a nice quality, is something I think we should frankly expect in our candidates. If anything, I think Hillary is over-prepared ... or rather, I always get the sense from her of being lectured to rather than listened to. To be fair, I imagine much of what I have heard of her has been edited by our right-wing media in the most unflattering light. Nonetheless, there are a handful of truly progressive female politicians I would choose to support over Hillary if they were to get into the race. I do think having a woman as President would be a good thing, I just don't think Hillary (or Condi!) is the answer. Frankly, both Hillary and Condi seem just like the posturing guys we're all sick of.

Anyway, my fear is that it will all be a moot point. I hate to be pessimistic, but remember how the 2000 Election (and 2004 too) played out in the press, both before, during and after the election? The Democrats could run Jesus himself against the Republicans' Lucifer and who do you think the media slant (not to mention the electronic voting machines) would favor? I'm not saying it's impossible for the Democrats to take the White House in '08, I'm just saying the liberal activist community must expect that what the media presents (and does not present) will bear no relationship to the truth. Whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being will need all of the online spin-correcting help they can get.

And P.S.: Is the Democrat-controlled Congress doing anything about election reform? Not financing, but the mechanics/standardization/security of our actual voting process? At this point it should be a HIGH PRIORITY.