"I am proud to have been part of the Clinton administration where I think we got a lot of things right during those eight years."

The First Lady is NOT part of any "administration"--not a cabinet officer, not secretary of anything, not a legal entity of any kind. I certainly did vote for Bill Clinton so Hillary Clinton could be part of his administration. I voted for BILL CLINTON. This is just so typical of her sense of entitlement, hubris, and--yes--at the root of my dislike of her, and why she fares so poorly against all the current Republican challengers.

Hillary Clinton should be aware that there are a great many democratic and independent voters who do not buy into the myth that her campaign is trying to spin in regard to the inevitability of her presidency. The nomination may be, but many of us learned bitter lessons voting for John Kerry and other unpalatable candidates that were put forward as the best of the bunch and, because of our social values, our votes were assumed only to watch those sub-standard candidates fail. I for one will not cast another such vote and will happy cross lines if the candidate is a centrist with the right social values. I am a 41-year-old woman, socially liberal and have never cast a republican vote in my life but I am turned off by the careful, smug, rehearsed politicking that the Clinton camp offers. Even with history on the line, I will vote my conscience this time. So Hillary, if I may call you Hillary, please try a bit harder and speak a bit more clearly. I want to know who you are and what you believe and understand why, after all these years, I don't know that already.

Given the relatively liberal readership and slant of Salon (I count this as a good thing), the responses to the interview with Hillary are indicative of the real reason she cannot win in 2008---and the corollary reason why concerned Democrats should be doing all they can to ensure a candidate other than Hillary for our next Presidential election. It is clear and obvious that Hillary is hated by 100% of the Republican faithful. This alone could be overcome, were it not for the fact that Hillary is also hated by a substantial portion of the Democratic faithful. Consequently, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, she will ensure a significant number of Democratic "crossover" votes cast for Republican or third party candidates, and the process will ensure a Democratic loss. I have yet to hear any pundit or interviewer who is sufficiently bold to ask Hillary whether she cares enough about Democratic victory in 2008 to stand aside, given the fact that this is the only way to ensure victory. We need a President who cares more about the future of Democratic values in our republic than his/her own emotional and personal needs to become President---As smart and clever and articulate as Hillary is, I have never felt that she cares about ensuring Democratic victory in 2008 nearly as much as she cares about becoming President. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I feel certain that a Hillary candidacy in 2008 will ensure one of the worst defeats in the history of our Democratic party.

I see one very important lesson from the first Clinton that I hope the second has learned. When democrats take over from republicans, they have to clean out the apparatchiks that the rs leave behind. All of them. And, you have to do it in a way that brands them as liars, thieves, cowards and incompetents, so they won't ever return to public life without a chorus of jeers. The first Clinton didn't do that, and look: they're baaack!

To make sure they don't come back, the second Clinton, or any democratic president, has to start ruthlessly going through documents and releasing them to the public. The material should be shoveled out in front of Congress and used to tar these baby Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzs and Scalias with the clear intent of ruining their reputations.

It may not work: Eliot Abrams was resuscitated like some zombie, and Gingrich has blown his burst bubble into the public limelight, but it gives us a fighting chance further down the road.

While I am usually very impressed with Walter Shapiro's writing, and with Salon's political coverage in general, this interview really demonstrates what I see as Salon's biggest weakness in 08 coverage so far: reflexive support for Hillary Clinton.

I'm sick of reading about whether or not "Hillary" is dimunitive, about who is out-fundraising who, and similar such trivialities. We're choosing a Democratic presidential candidate to finally lead us into a new century, and these are the issues we see fit to discuss?

If Clinton wants to sell me on her candidacy, there are a lot of questions I want answered. Save the hawkish posturing, the finger in the wind moderate charade, and the bipartisan talking points for the general election. Barack Obama has not budged from my first choice position because he represents a moving-on in Democratic politics - a new generation. I fear the horrors of the last six years have diluted much of the displeasure many Americans felt at the close of the Clinton years (conservative backlashes don't just happen because of 9/11. If everyone loved Clintonian politics then as they seem to now, Gore would have won handily).

It should be the responsibility of openly left-leaning media outlets like Salon to force Hillary Clinton to address this issue. She gets away with not answering anyone's questions and the last thing we need is another president whose arrogance makes her feel that she is not accountable for her positions and her policy decisions.

She's brilliant and competent, it's true. But does the nation's number one permanent law school overachiever really have a vision for us, and will she ever really come clean about what it exactly entails? Next time you interview her, ASK HER!

First, we all know that Salon has some historical ties to the Clinton campaign- but I have become convinced that they are at least trying to stay neutral in their coverage. This article, however, should not have been given to Walt. He literally told her that he can't wait to stare into her eyes across a crowded room. That tells you all you need to know about his position.

That's an interesting take on what he actually said:

"I look forward to seeing you across a crowded room Friday in New Hampshire."

For the content-impaired, that would mean he will attend a public event (good thing for a political journalist to do, I'm thinking) and see her but not speak to her, as you would normally expect if you told someone you'd see her on Friday. Stretching that into a desire to stare into her eyes from across a crowded room takes some doing. I applaud you.

I haven't been a fan of hers (I suspect HRC of going where the wind goes) but she spoke well for herself here.

-TR