No, abortion of justice. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but come on. What Bush has just done is appalling. Sickening. Clinton handed out the usual political pardons, Bush has just granted clemency to a man who has direct knowledge of treasonous acts committed by at least his own right-hand man and probably the Vice President of the United States. We all know the arguments. Mr. Scherer, trying to tag Hillary with hypocrisy is not the best use of your/our time. It's better that you ask why she, other candidates and the leadership of the Democratic party aren't seeking impeachment and criminal inditement of the President and Vice President.

That's just wrong. If you want to ask all of the Democratic nominees how these pardons compare to those of Clinton, then do so. But don't pretend that Hilary is nothing but another arm of her husband, implying that she is accountable to him and must explain his actions.

Maybe Barbara Bush should run for president.

I don't believe Hillary should have to answer for Bill. That aside, there is no comparison. Yes Bill was wrong to pardon Marc Rich but it wasn't to cover up a crime committed on his behalf. Bush commuting Libby's sentence was a continuation of the obstruction of justice into the outing of Valerie Plame. Now we will never know what really happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. It appears to me that Libby was acting on behalf of both Bush and Cheney. His lies were intended to shield their involvement in the outing of Valerie Plames undercover identity. I can only hope that this outrage gives the dems a much needed kick in the balls to bring impeachment charges againt Bush and Cheney. Hopefully there are still some republicans in congress that have a sense of decency and respect for our system of government, and will do what is right. I ain't holding my breath though.

Of course the Repooplicans will drag up Bill Clinton when trying to slam Hillary: they have nothing else!

You can always tell when Repooplicans are desperate; they always begin any refutation of fact with "...bbbbut, Clinton...bbbbut, Clinton!"

Lame, sad, pathetic and predictable.

I agree that she should not have to answer for her husband's past actions. That said, if she is going to be the Dem nominee (and please oh please oh please I hope not), I do hope she learns to say this herself, loudly and clearly: "I am not my husband." She has to be able to stand up straight and tall and win on something besides her relationship to a past president.

Still, my inner child is sticking out its tongue at her and saying it's not fair that she doesn't have to answer for his mistakes when she is only the alleged frontrunner because of his popularity.

And does anyone actually know a Hillary fan? I really do not understand how she comes out so far ahead in all these polls when NO ONE LIKES HER. Most people I know are trying to decide between Edwards and Obama - or are supporting Kucinich and Gravel to help get their message out during the primaries. Maybe that's all it is; Edwards and Obama are dividing the majority of the vote. If the polls asked people to choose between HRC and Edwards, and then between HRC and Obama, I don't think she would have a chance.

I wish she would just drop out. It's clear to me that she is not good for the Dems, and she is not FOR the Dems. She is only for herself.

Now as I recall the president said, if anybody in his White House were found to have any part in disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame they would be fired.

In fact, he was not found guilty of this at all. Are there no fact checkers at Salon? There was no evidence for him to be charged with that crime. All he can be charged with is (after the Plame's name had already been leaked) having claimed to have heard the information from someone who in fact did not give him the information. In a conversation held after her identity had been revealed. So he's got an obstruction of justice charge to face. Whether he intentionally lied or misremembered is not clear. Let's go ahead and claim he lied (why not? this is Salon). But his is not, repeat, is not charged with leaking Plame's name to either Novak or Miller. Or any other reporter.

So, is Hillary, a lawyer herself, ignorant of the facts of the case? Or does she just see how very well her statement would play?

Bush promised that the leaker would no longer be part of the administration. Libby is neither the leaker nor any longer part of the administration. Bush never promised that a perjury conviction would yield jail time. So Hillary has failed to demonstrate any contradiction.

Whatever Bill Clinton did or did not do, that was six years ago. I think we'll be a hell of a lot better off when we start worrying about what TODAY'S president is doing (or not doing) and quit making comparisons with the past.

It's politics as normal. Libby has far too much dirt on Bush and Cheney to be allowed to go to jail and then squeal on his masters.

If I were president, given a choice between commuting Libby's sentence and having him finger me as the prime mover in the outing of Valerie Plame, I would commute like crazy.

You imagine that Libby obliquely blackmailed the White House? How would that benefit him. He would literally 'never work in this town again'. True he'd stay out of jail but he'd be forever a pariah. No the simplest answer is the best. Bush commuted his sentence because a) he can and he doesn't give crap what a single American citizen outside of his base thinks. And b) he is rewarding loyalty for Libby who stepped up to be the fall guy. Now Libby will lose his Wash DC Bar License and probably his Pennsylvania license as well. But as a lobbyist, think tanker and whatnot that's not a big deal.

Plus he sends a demoralizing message to all prosecutors who are thinking of going after anyone in the Administration: don't bother, it won't make any difference. If I were a prosecutor I wouldn't waste a year of my life on convicting a criminal who Bush is going to let go. This a tinpot tyranny we live in. It's like countries where Maximum Leader simply erases election results and judicial sentences he doesn't like. But on the bright side, some of Salon's favorite left wing dictatorships run this very way.