Let me join with others in thanking Mr. Shapiro for conducting an interview that produced a real portrait of the woman as a candidate. I also liked what I saw: a thinking, pragmatic president.

For those who disapprove of "Hillary" so much, look at

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1

and regard the titles at the top. Now, the point about a reporter saying, McCain, Edwards, Obama and Hillary also stands, though not so strongly as long as the campaign refers to her as "Hillary" over and over.

I do hope that the party takes a more adventurous stance in '08, but what this interview showed me, again, is that Hillary would make a very competent president, and wouldn't that be a change?

The critics of Hillary here, are so absolute on their judgement of her. What is ironic here, is her interview reflects a level of maturity I find soothing: nothing is absolute. None of this cocksure "I'm your daddy" crap. The framework of this interview reveals that being absolute will bring likely bring failure.

Perhaps that isn't "strong" enough for the Hillary critics. I disagree, however. Being strong isn't being absolute. That backwards-ass definition is what has given us the rise of the GOP. Maybe if people started being intellectually honest about what Hillary is trying to bring to the table, they would realize that strength lies in wisdom, not being closed-minded.

And if these critics want to question the integrity of her wisdom and her words, then not only are the victims of irony, but they also proved that the lying words of the GOP and the 15-year smear of Hillary, has worked on the very people who decry them.

Were I to run for president (not that anyone asked).

1.) We (read Bush and his cronies) really screwed up bad by going into Iraq. I mean BAD. Terrible. (Comic salesmen in Simpson's Voice)"Worst decision ever."

2.) Admit that Iraq is broken - badly. And that like it or not - it is our collective fault. Already at war with itself - and likely to get much, much worse when we withdrawl.

3.) Pursue every avenue available to have Bush and company tried for war crimes and for crimes against humanity.

4.) Open our borders to any Iraqi who would be willing to come - subject to reasonable background checks. Provide them with 10,000.00 U.S. each at the door, to get them started in their new lives.

5.) Redeploy 500,000.00 additional troops to oversee this process. Instate the military draft to raise these numbers, biased against those demographics who underserve in the current military. Give the process 5 more years - and as much as 50 trillion dollars.

6.) Force our troops to err on the side of respecting the humanity of every Iraqi - even if it means we lose more troops in the process (like I said, we broke it - we fix it - no matter the cost). Only in this way can we hope to regain a modicum of respect both in Iraq and internationally.

7.) Prepare ourselves emotionally to live much more impoverished lives for the forseeable future as we pay for this mistake out of our collective pockets.

"Well, I'm not going to answer hypotheticals..."

I've definitely heard this coming from the Bush Admin. over the past few years. Condi likes it. Google "rice" and "hypotheticals"

If she's not going to get into hypotheticals, we can't know much about how she'll actually govern.

as candidates who are concerned with social and economic justice. Hillary Clinton has long worked on children's issues -- which is a particular interest of mine, and Edward's populist sensibility tells me that he will never forget the poor.

Of the three that the media most covers, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, it is clearly Senator Clinton who has the most experience. I worry about the corporate investment in Clinton's campaign, but the reality is that no one can win without having raised an obscene amount of money. I would love to hear more about what they will do to make elections fair again. I won't hold my breath.

I challenge anyone who claims Hillary is not more qualified than Barack Obama and John Edwards to spend some time researching all that Hillary has done. I am always at a loss to encapsulate her vast experience - she has done so much. Hillary was working on behalf of disadvantaged women in countries all over the world when Barack Obama was still partying at Harvard, and long long before any of us knew who John Edwards was.

Do the research. It is all on record and all available on the internet.

I am thrilled she is running for President.

She's dropped the "Rodham" again, eh? Must be an election coming up.

It's too bad she can't change the 3,000+ military deaths that have occurred due, in part, to her support of a war that gets excoriated daily in this very web journal, as easily as she changes her name.

I suspect my politics are as close to Hillary Clinton's as anyone on earth (other than her husband). Nonetheless, she has an annoying habit of substituting pablum for specifics.

Others have commented that there was substance in her interview; I didn't see any of it. What's her position on Iraq? "No one can know what the situation will be on January 20, 2009." Really? Let me make a wild guess: it's not going to be any better and all our troops will still be there. What you would today if you became president today and what you will do on January 20, 2009, are going to be about the same. You want my vote? Give me a little hint. You want to throw b.s. at me, I'm off looking for another candidate, thank you.

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.