First of all, life has been so bad in America in the last six-plus years that the Democrats could nominate a ticket of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and I would still vote for them. How can things get any worse? The U.S. has alienated the entire world, the Administration is thumbing its nose at the Constitution, we are torturing people in the name of freedom, and oh, by the way, the polar ice caps are melting. I really don't see how things can get any worse.

If somebody, anybody, male or female, can rescue us from this unmitigated disaster of an Administration, then I say, have at it.

Add to that the fact that the standard bearer might be a woman and it's an extra bonus. The country needs saving — if a candidate with solutions comes along, and happens to be a woman — then she will succeed.

I'm voting for Hillary. I have faith in a Clinton, because Clintons know how to beat the evil people who have sullied our country's reputation and squandered the good will of the world. And that's the most important thing to me right now. We must win. You can't do shit if you don't win.

I am so painfully sick of hearing about Senator Clinton.

She is no worse than anyone else. Better than some

the obsession with her is sick and annoying.

Has anyone else ever been scrutinized and challenged at such length and intensity?

PLEASE give it a rest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7040357,00.html

She's the frontrunner in an election where it's widely believed that the winner of this primary will likely go on to win the general election. Of course the other candidates are going to go after her, especially when the big complaint by many potential voters is that all the democratic candidates are alike.

I knew Hillary wouldn't be above playing the role of the poor little woman being attacked by these big mean men the second they started to take shots at her. It's a cheap ploy for sympathy from women voters, who (if i remember correctly) she's currently polling very poorly with. Honestly, can you imagine a male candidate making a video like this?

I'm voting for Hillary. I have faith in a Clinton, because Clintons know how to beat the evil people who have sullied our country's reputation and squandered the good will of the world. And that's the most important thing to me right now. We must win. You can't do shit if you don't win.

That's funny, because the need to win is the exact reason why I don't support Hillary in the primaries. The only possible way to motivate the Republican base to get out and vote in 08 more than putting Hillary up as the democratic candidate would be to run a homosexual muslim socialist. Don't underestimate how much they despise anyone with the name Clinton. Also, take a look at how many people already have an unfavorable view of her in the polls. Do you really think she would be the candidate most likely to win?

Also, one of the biggest reasons I don't want to see Hillary in the White House in 2008 is it will no doubt continue the bitterly partisan atmosphere that has characterized American politics for the past eight years. It will be counterproductive and will continue to distract from the real important issues for at least another 4 years. Now I'm not some kind of hopeless idealist that thinks that one person can bring both sides together in harmony and we'll all live happily ever after, but I do believe Clinton would just continue the current cycle.

If you just want want some kind of revenge candidate to rub it in the faces of Republicans, which it seems like you do, then Hillary would be your best choice. But if you want someone that won't keep widening the ridiculous divide between left and right in this country then I strongly suggest you look elsewhere.

...Arnold Schwarzenegger when he first ran for Governor of California in 2003. The endless parade of articles about his acting career and personal life, everyone from the Sunday pundits to the late-night talk show hosts throwing in their two cents about the "Governator."

The best, most dead-on piece of political commentary I've ever read on the Web came from someone who summed it all up beyond beautifully - the media basically did Arnold's campaigning for him.

I'm seeing the exact same thing with Hillary. I just hope that during the coming months there will be more emphasis on her platform, that set of ideas politicians used to offer as a reason to elect them before the MSM’s attention turned to sample polls, expensive haircuts, and gay gospel singers.

"The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, Hillary."

If one thing can be said of the American people (and of the media jesters who are paid to tap our eyes), it is that we are easily bored. And by January, we will so Bored To Tears of Ms. Hillary Clinton and the narrative of her much touted but poorly supported coronation, that we will want to hear another story very, very badly. Perhaps the surprise ascendency of Edwards? (An Edwards/Obama ticket would be UNSTOPPABLE!)

In any event, so long as her competitors don't split the rest of the vote too much, I suspect that she is not going to do nearly as well as people think in the primaries.

if Hillary wins I will either abstain from voting or vote third party (i hope Nader runs)..in the meantime for every pro-Hillary article Salon belches out I will be putting out a anti-Hillary sermon to my colleagues and anyone who will listen

Of course we can take it. But it would help if we found ways of objecting to this appallingly destructive and uninformative media circus where the the principal objective is aparently to enable the Russetts to have something to go out for lunch on the next day.

In particular, it would help if the remaining legitimate media would do its best to help us wade through the the media prima donna's sometimes bogus, often intentionally inflammatory shenanigans. Bloomberg, I noted, was exemplary in its report of the debate. And when issues are tricky or misleading, like the archives matter, it is incumbent on Michael Scherer and anybody else who can to dig in and clarify the facts. The fact is that the letter that Russert was waving around was issued by President Clinton, as a routine matter, in 1994 (see Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune, for example), and deals with the issue of what to do with presidential papers IF something hapens to the presiident. After Clinton left the presidency, he asked that his papers be released immediately. However, Bush issued new byzantine rules regarding presidential papers to which Clinton publicly objected. FOIA requests to the Reagan Library are now taking 6 1/2 years. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, praised Clinton for releasing "more secret documents than all previous presidents put together." Because of the new Bush rules, Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the archives says, "The process is really daunting. Every FOIA request ... (requires) us to look at millions and millions of papers. Once we have vetted everything for classigfied material, it then goes to the former president's representative, and then the current president." There are 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents involving ten million papers. Too complicated for the masses like us? I don't think so.