Just what "hard-won" experience are we talking about? Let's see: How many positions has she taken on Iraq? And now she is going to keep troops there forever to compound the problems? Just what experience is she drawing on there?

First she supported the war. Then she wouldn't have supported the war if she had known what she knows now. (Likely experience here: others were gaining by having been against the war, and the electorate seemed to believe that we should declare victory and leave.) When for some reason that didn't fly, she decided to stay something different from anyone else: i.e., that we should stay in Iraq for 10 years. Which oil company gives her marching orders?

Or is it Bill's experience we are talking about? Or maybe her experience in New York? I am sure you have all heard what I have read: she doesn't lead, she follows.

Furthermore, and this really pisses off a lot of us who liked Bill Clinton: She didn't stand by her man. He was impeached for the most trivial reason, and where was she? Was she big enough to say to the world, "Hey, this is personal. Leave him alone. We will resolve this between us." Or something of the sort. No, she just uses the incident to try to stir up sympathy.

And so it will always be.

As a Brit used to the very high standards of speaking and communicating required of our leaders, it is finally refreshing after 8 long years of inarticulate George Bush to have someone who can speak in paragraphs and with clarity and precision. I'm pretty sure the world, certainly Britain is sitting with their finger's crossed hoping American's make a good descision this time. If I may with great respect give voters some advice: Don't go for likeability or charisma. We did that in Britain and got Tony Blair, who took us down the alley of Iraq and basically trashed what was left of Britain's world reputation. Go for competence, go for a sharp mind, go for someone tough minded but fair. Go for someone who is cautious, deliberate and serious minded who won't bet what's left in your Treasury on some wild adventure. Go for someone who commands wide respect internationally. Go for someone who will make you proud when they walk down the steps of Airforce One. Go for a meritocrat who studied hard at school, never relied of family connections but was propelled by the force of their own ambitions. Don't go for someone like George Bush who thinks they are above the English language, that wealth and power exempt them even from intellectual seriousness and even the rules of the English grammar. Eight years of George Bush has given the world time to figure out how to bypass America or just work around this troubled nation. Go for someone who will make America relevant again. Go for someone who will be ready on Day One. Go for Hillary Clinton.

I prefer a fair interview to the in your face type. The answers showed some thought behind them. No glib one liners, catchy phrases and the usual mind numbing bullshit that passes for pundit approved talking points. (I wonder how Chris Matthews will react. Will he get a heart attack?)

If one wants likeability (which seems to be the rage) then you had that for 7 years now. Recall that all the pundits wanted to have beer with the guy? Now they swoon over Thompson and gloss over his love life, and are looking for a manly man.

Hillary is not my first choice but I confess to having second thoughts about Obama - about his relative lack of experience. I saw Michelle Obama stressing her independent mind and asked myself: If Hillary has said this what would have been the reaction? Yet Michelle said things that were said by Hillary and I say good for her.

No sale. No way. She's as duplicitous and as slippery as they come. If it weren't for Guilani she'd be the most despicable candidate running. If it weren't for Cheney she'd be the most hated person in America. DO. NOT. WANT.

I know few well educated, independent smart women (a major demographic these days) who would vote for Hillary--

You can add me to your count of college graduate, respected professional (in a male dominated field), mature, intelligent, and fiercely independent women (a major demographic today and always) that WILL indeed be voting for Hillary.

and Hillary said nothing of substance, just the typically mush-mouthed vague platitudes. About halfway through the interview I just started glossing over her answers because it's just typical politician mealy-mouthed responses. I will not vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination. She is just as much of a threat to our freedoms and our prosperity as a nation in her own unique way as Guiliani or any of the other Republican candidates. I can do without Hillary's brand of timid and cautious "pragmatic centrism."

Spears or Hasselhoff, that is.

It was a kids-gloves interview.

I would love to see someone ask her really tough questions like why it is legal to invade other countries, countries that are not threatening us. Why, if she has the time and the stamina to prepare for campaign events, she could not find the time to read the intelligence reports before voting to give GW Bush the authority to wage war.

Now Salon is writing gushing teen-mag style pieces about Hillary Clinton. And many of the readers are lapping it up.

Is a vote for political dynasty and war. Hillary supported the Iraq war, that is all I need to know to realize she is on the wrong side of the most important issue in America. That is simply not a correctable "mistake" at this point.

I also shudder to imagine a country where every person under the age of 24 will have never even been alive when there was not a Clinton or Bush in the White House...what will they think of this "Democratic" country, knowing that the same two families have controlled our government for over two decades straight? How much easier for the next generation to accept our descent into being a plutocratic society. We will have become more monarchical than Britain at that point.

Barack '08