The complaints about having to "hold noses" to vote for a Democratic nominee should be directed at voters, not politicians. Look, the primary is for We the People to choose who we think is the best potential President and not to second guess what the undecided voter in a swing state thinks. That's how you end up with John Kerry in 2004.

And hey, no one is going to have the exact same stance on every issue as you do unless you are the candidate running. Go for it! We need a wider field. But if you aren't running, don't let a search for the "perfect" distract you from the pretty darn good.

I have to say, I was lukewarm on H. Clinton until this interview. She makes a good case for herself.

I'd be happy voting for Clinton, Edwards, Obama or Richardson -- and I'd be happier voting for a ticket that held two of those four.

We know Hillary has had enough practice and accumulated enough knowledge over the years to ace an interview like this. What wasn't asked were incisive followup questions.

Example: When Shapiro brought up the issue of two families controlling the White House for 24-28 years, Hillary gave us a standard "judge me on my own merit" answer which is reasonable. At this point, Shapiro should have asked the question why term limits are advisable and why it's good to not concentrate the power in two families - It's not just the people at the very top who can cause stagnation in fresh ideas at the top, but also their close network of advisers and friends. What Shapiro should have asked if what Hillary has done to bring in enough fresh blood to give other Democrats a chance at showing what they can do instead of the usual Clintonites.

Hillary also gave a reasonable answer to the pullout of troops. But what Shapiro should have asked is why Hillary did not know THEN what she knows now about the iraq war because the NIE was available to her back then and Code Pink and others had access to her and she got to hear directly from them concerns which she acknowledges as KNOWING NOW. This question is relevant because it goes to understanding why a leader makes decisions and if she really learned from her mistakes. Scott Ritter was telling anyone who would listen not to fall for the Bushes.

Another question: If Hillary wants to prove herself as a leader, why did she not take on a bigger role in 2004 elections since getting rid of Bush was something any self respect Democratic LEADER should have considered their duty.

This question is relevant because it goes to indicate how a leader can persuade others to go along for a progressive agenda. LBJ was no liberal, but he did a better job than many liberal Presidents would have at the time in getting civil rights legislation passed through. Leadership is important. And a person like Hillary has shown a fear of looking weak. SO by acting strong she is ironically showing a lack of leadership.

Dean lost a bitter primary and he still tirelessly canvassed the country for Kerry. Hillary has no record of defending progressives who were fighting the lonely fight against the Bush followers regarding the war. She pretty much spearheaded a few issues, but rarely came to help of other progressive Democrats because she was afraid of risking her chances for a 2008 Presidency. She put that above her duty to the country.

Hillary will be an improvment over Bush on many other positions, but so will other Democratic leaders who don't have her Iraq war baggage.

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. There were some good questions but not much substantive follow-up.

I for one would like to hear some questions about trade and the world economy because I think that Sen. Clinton is in grave danger of being stuck in the old mindset of the Clinton Cadre. More telling than some short-form interview responses would be who she plans on bringing into her administration.

LW's have been commenting on both sides about experience and the utility of Clinton's insider position within the mainstream. That issue is where Obama draws voters from Clinton- the differences are clear to voters. The real danger when you are talking about experience, the establishment, political savvy, etc. comes down to Shapiro's question about staffing. A President, no matter how smart or strong willed, is made of the people they surround themselves with. That being the case, the question put to the voter then becomes: 'Do you trust Hillary's historical alliances and positions to serve the Nation best in the coming years?' That is what worries people about Hillary- not that she lacks experience, but that too much of that obsolete history will bleed into her future administration. It is where my concerns about her financial and trade policies come from. Her stance on Iraq has more to do with her stance on Israel and our energy-strategy than it does on the procedural issues of how she would get out of Iraq (she'll listen to her commanders on the ground like Bush should have done in the first place with troop levels). Her views of trade and development strategies are more important to our future world credibility than her ideas for the best way to withdraw troops. It is enough that she wants to get them out- a true executive's job is to make the hard decisions and then delegate the implimentation the the most qualified person they can find.

I was impressed by this article. A reminder of how smart she is and how prepared she is to be President. I know she has the skills and knowledge.

There is a question that I wish Shapiro had asked:

You and Bill were idealists in your youth. Our country is at a time where it seems we *must* get back to the ideals that made our Country great. I think the public understands that under Bill's watch the political climate required treading lightly in many cases, in order to get things done. Please describe what you think the differences are between 1993 and 2008?