Yes, comparing Hillary to Bush is silly on so many levels. However if what is being compared is Bush's arrogance, then perhaps it would be more accurate to frame the comparison as being between Hillary and Cheney. Ambition and blinders-on, ends-justifying-the-means hunger for power.

Any candidate in serious contention would be an idiot to talk about "what if I lose." Fred Thompson has already said he doubts he'll be the nominee. He's acting like a loser, and he's being treated like a loser. I see nothing wrong with Clinton's answer.

I also see nothing wrong with Obama's retort. Albright can say whatever she wants. He made his point, and he made a valid point.

The overall tone is getting far to shrill from both camps for my taste. Every little snipe takes more attention away from the real issues. To be honest, it just bolsters the notion of the Clinton's craven, whatever it takes to get power MO; and it dulls Obama's carefully constructed "above the fray" persona.

But its getting just as nasty on the Republican side, so we're stuck with business as usual.

Please read your quotes with an eye to detail, not an eye to "gotcha".

Obama was saying that Albright was the face of foreign policy in the Clinton administration, not Hillary.

The fact that Albright supports Hillary is not surprising, and she does not say, yes, Hillary was running foreign policy.

There is no gaffe, and there is no story. I get so tired of these tired story lines. It is always "Obama makes mistakes and is inexperienced" and "Hillary is cold and manipulative". Either of these stories may have small grains of truth, but they are just cheap journalistic shorthand for "I don't really have anything to say."

"Slugfest"? Really? It's only a "fight" if you make it that way. They're politicians. They're debating the best course for the nation and, yes, slinging barbs. But it's only as much of a "fight" as the media wants it to be.

Six months from now Salon is going to post an article about the dirty tricks, half-truths and hype of the media, as if to set yourselves apart from the fray. Nobody benefits from a "fight", certainly not the voters, except for the media who need a good story.

I realize that you're just over the top giddy at the thought of a female President, but please stop with the gushingly silly paeans. Hillary's sense of entitlement is palpable to those who wish to recognize it for what it is.

Calling hubris confidence does not make it any more palatable. And the Shrub analogy is, I'm sorry, apt. The fact that two different people were raised differently doesn't mean they can't each be huge bags of overweening pride and arrogance.

As for Obama's "gaffe," thanks for the belly laugh. Ooh, he said Albright had experience and Hillary did not. Let's just see what Albright says about that... Well, we can't really because she's not around, so we'll just have to take your word for it, it was a "gaffe." From which he'll have a heckuva time recovering, no less. Uh-huh.

Jeez, and I thought Fox News Channel was biased.

This post is content-less tripe. I get very weary of a theme I see here at Salon ... poster states some provocative opinion (I presume with the goal to "get people thinking" or more likely to drive commentary or site traffic) ... and then we all rush to say "bullshit" or "hell yes." Joan, you have become a talking head ... and I fear that you are unable to see how your criticism of the mainstream media is, in part, a projection. I would welcome from the comment section an answer to this question: Where can one find intelligent, balanced analysis of current events? I don't want this reporting to be subverted by political agenda or corporate influence. I hoped to find this here ... but so much of the "opinion" ... or worse ... the "reporting" (like the coverage of the debates) is Jerry Springer with a slightly higher IQ. Meaning: it's all about the fights, and there is nearly nothing of substance. You are blowing it, Joan. I don't plan to renew my subscription. I will still read Glenn Greenwald ... who (aside from occasional decent posts from Tim Grieve in War room) is the only worthwhile political read around here. I expect so much more.

I just really, really want you to kill Kansas O'Flaherty. It sucks ASS! Until you do, it's absolute suckiness taints everything else in Salon.

As long as we're parsing every little thing, and as one who could not be more appalled by George W. Bush in toto, I just have to say Ms. Clinton's "confidence" strikes me as not-oh-so-different from Mr. Bush's "arrogance" in one very important respect -- as an indicator of a lack of self-awareness.

I was going to describe it as a lack of genuineness, but I believe the president is, in fact, genuinely self-unaware, which is why his clueless bravado and endless optimism in the face of his own utter inadequacy and the failure of his presidency are so laughable, and, for the rest of us, tragic.

Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, knows "America wants a commander-in-chief brimming with confidence." It is, after all, the kind of person who's had the job the past eight years.

Ms. Couric actually handed the candidate a golden opportunity to burnish a part of her image that Republicans and Democrats alike seem to agree is the greatest impediment to her becoming our first woman president, and that is, frankly, her lack of genuineness.

It would have been far more genuine -- and honest -- of her to answer the question in a way similar to Ms. Walsh, to point out the strength and breadth of her lead in the polls, and to allow that not getting the nomination would neither be the death knell of her political career nor keep her from working to undo the terrible damage the outgoing Republican administration has done during the past eight years.

She's never thought about the chance she could lose the presidency? Of course not. In the same way her husband never inhaled and never had sex with that woman.