Wonderful Senator, Terrible Presidential Candidate. I don’t want another 4 years of Bush style leadership, I want a Democratic winner

Stay a Senator, Hillary.  That's where your contribution can be made and where you will earn your legacy. 

However, in the real world I am going to hold judgement on such matters for the next year to year and a half. 

During that time frame Hillary will have plenty more opportunity to work on her national image.  If she shows strong signs of success in changing that image, and shedding some of the baggage, she could very well be a strong, electable, candidate.  That's a big "if" because there's a lot of work to be done, but I'm willing to give her that time instead of jumping to the conclusion that she's completely unelectable at this point.

What I like most about James Webb, independence of thought, and courage of conviction seems to be missing in Hillary when it matters most.  But then again, the woman can raise some campaign money!

As far as being impressed -- I remember how shocked Dick Armey was when she testified before the House on the medical plan.  Now one has ever doubted her intelligence.

To her credit she did vote against the flag Amendment, so she passed that bottom line test for me.  She opposed Gonzales, which was another important benchmark.  And from all I've heard over the years, despite her having started as a Goldwater girl back in IL she was in many ways far more liberal than Bill on many issues.

I do not underestimate her by any means, but I really wonder how she will play in states like Iowa and SC and NV, 3 of the 1st 4.  And she is a sitting senator -  they often win nominations but only two have ever been elected, Harding and Kennedy.

Until then, give me someone who speaks from the gut. I haven't heard enough from Warner, but I think he is also a little too polished for my tastes, which leaves me with Edwards' Two Americas. Very salient after Katrina.

At this point the only good Democrat is the Democrat that is working for victory in 2006.  I  am making a list, checkin' it twice, gonna find out...

She is a lost cause.

But then, so are 90% of our potential nominees...

The Clintons have done a lot of great things, but the time has come for them to graze in the grass and hopefully help raise money for the next crop of Democratic leaders if they're interested. The Clintons do know how to raise money. Bottom line, if she does get nomination,I'll push the button for her, but won't have a bumper sticker on my car.

And remember that strictly speaking Florida is not the South -- it has large chunks of voters who do not think like other Southern states. In fact one could argue that the "T" of Pennsylvania (outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and their suburbs) has more in common with Alabama than does Florida except for the Panhandle, which is of course adjacent.

Clinton, as first lady and advisor, WAS in the White House for 8 years.  That's enough.  No more dynasties, please.  We should have learned that lesson long ago, but now we really know once and for all to never again elect the same member of a family to the White House. 

It's stunning that we cannot produce someone else at this point. And I am more than a little ticked off at the logic of those who seem to think it "has" to be either Hillary or Mark (the purported un-Hillary). 

I also think its more than hypocritical for folks to say that Al Gore "had his chance" (when he actually WON), but Hillary, who had the White House for eight years, didn't.  Hillary hasn't earned the nomination by the independence of her ideas and her leadership. 

Her ability to win the general is doubtful.  If your feeling like a "throwback," Al Gore is a far more courageous "throwback" --he's actually not a throwback, but has grown over the years and continues to learn (while Hillary doesn't).  Hillary is not a leader, but a follower.  Al Gore stood up against the Iraq war, the assault on our liberties, and our massive environmental degredation.  Hillary didn't. If we select a gutless wonder such as this, I'll sit out 2008.  Pull the lever, yes.  Work my tail off, no.

I'm not sure how that makes him stronger against McCain and or Giuliani..............

I think the main reason democrats don't like Hillary...besides the war in Iraq issue...is because they don't think she can win and we just can't bear another loss.  It has little to do with whether she would be a good president or not.

I'm not comparing Hillary to Hitler, but I want to make the point that some of the most charming people I have met in my life turned out to be very dangerous and untrustworthy.

And isn't it time we had a REAL second party and not just a false choice of a Republican or a Hillary or a Lieberman?

Bush is charming too.  The affable frontman.  And he is supposed to be intelligent too, just extremely lazy and dangerous.

Why the secrecy of where she was last night.  Let me guess.

Sign me,

Not Star Strucken

Just last week we saw him at the G-8, using crude language as he stuffed his month full of food!  This is how he behaves at a formal dinner talking to a PM!  You call that charming?

Also from the G-8.  Is this an example of his intelligence?
"Russia's big and so is China."
If a four year old said that, it would be intelligent.  He is stupid and lazy!

If you hate Hillary...fine.  But to compare her to Bush is reaching.  She has written two books...I don't think he has read two books!

Just like MLK said, a lie will eventually fall from its own weight.  Bush can't hide his emptiness any longer.  He isn't coping with the stress of ruining the world.  He is now an acting-out child. 

I was actually comparing him to hitler.  People idolized hitler, women swooned over him.  His being single helped. They imagined him being something he wasn't (real). 

Two year olds hate (I hate this and I love that).  I don't hate Hillary.  I don't trust her anymore.  But thanks for the lecture!

I hate to quote the Bible, but this particular verse tells us to beware of appearances. "You shall know them by their works".

Bill Clinton had the likeability factor too, but Hillary doesn't have the charm that her husband had, and frankly I believe whatever message she would try to convey would get lost in her baggage. Why deal with it--move on like Kathyinblacksburg said. We don't need more distractions that she would bring, we need substantive candidates with some charisma that can lead and not follow Republican Light ideas.

I'm tired of our candidates being chosen for us.  They destroyed Dean(Clark) and gave us Kerry.  Now they want Hillary.  I never thought I'd turn against her.  I wish her well.  But Ruppert and Hannity will not speak for me.

Has it occurred to you that Murdoch's money and media influence can actually help us win a democratic majority and presidency????  Would you rather it stay as it is, republican dominance, than to accept help from the other side????

A year ago...you could have put Jim Webb in the same catagory as Murdoch.  Consider that.

What I meant was we need to save ourselves from thinking desperately--and, ironically, having that desperation set us up to lose.  Sure these are desperate times.  But we need candidates who stand for something AND can win.  I doubt Hillary is capable of either.  What is clear is that she leads among Dems.  The cross-party polls don't show that.

Do you really think we'll get any real help from Murdoch?  After all the damage FOX News and FOX radio has wrought, do you really think Rupert Murdoch will come through for Democrats?  He's just hedging his bets.  It's the old go-through-the-motions routine, so in the event she does win, he'll get favorable regs from her.  But don't count on him for anything helpful to Dems.  Every day, in every way, his handiwork is all over the worst of the worst of the gasbags.  Rupert's FOX has ratcheted up hate in America to a dangerous degree.  He's given voice to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and so many more. 

Still not convinced?  Check in at http://Mediamatters.... for Fox fact checking or rent the video "Outfoxed."  Faux News is run as if it were an agency of the White House.  Every day the Bush talking points come down from on high.  And every single newsreporter and GOP-leaning talking head uses them, over and over.

Do you ever listen to FOX?  If not, maybe you should.  Then perhaps you'd see you your own desperation to win via Rupert will be sadly disappointed.

Let's really win.  Win with a strong candidate (who doesn't capitulate every time they turn around), but one who knows when compromise is appropriate and constructive. We need a candidate who leads, fully rejects neocon hegemony, doesn't rush to a military solution, and pushes diplomacy first and foremost.  Her behavior in the past few years suggests she's lost her way.  She's been manipulated by BUSCO an its attempt to ramp up fear in this country.  Bush knows that fear works and Hillary has been only too willing ot capitalize on it herself.  And like Bush, she doesn't see the mistakes she's made.

On the domestic front, we already know that Hillary can't produce health care reform.  And we can't afford another president who doesnt' deliver on the need for universal health care.

I also think Hillary is too closely tied to extreme globalization.  Globalization is a reality.  But some compromises are surely in order (eg, no more tax incentives for offshoring and outsourcing).  Hillary once really got, or seemd to, what ordinary Americans go through.  Sadly, she's forgotten.  She's changed, and not for the better.

I write the above as one who spent my spare time in the 1996-8 time-frame defending the Clintons in more posts than I can count.  So please dont' get all over me as a supposed Clinton-hater.  I am not.  No matter how strenuously I may oppose her in a primary process, I have logged more hours than most bloggers today defending her and Bill.  I just won't do it for this presidential race.

I want to win too.  But it's frightening how quickly some folks are willing to settle, only because they think the brand will sell.  It probaly wont. It's yesterdays brand.

I would vote for a women for president in a heartbeat, if the right candidate runs.  And I reject the claims by yet another blogger/commentor to this article, that we who don't embrace Hillary are chauvinistic.  I am a feminist.  But feminism doesn't mean voting for any women just to prove one's feminism, or open-mindedness.  It means voting for the best candidate, who may be(and in some races is) a woman. 

Of course Jim Webb is very different than Rupert Murdoch.  That is my point.  But...if we neatly divide everyone up between "us" and "them"...then, sorry, but a year ago Webb would have been one of "them".  "They" are not all alike.  "They" are capable of changing there minds as Webb did.  And when they change their minds we should be happy and welcoming.

I own the movie "Outfoxed".  Fox News, the MSM, Rupert Murdoch are not trying to push a political agenda because they are committed republicans.  They are about business and making money.  If being republican is more profitable...then that's what they are.  If it becomes more profitable to be democrat, they'll jump ship.  That's the primary problem with the MSM...they are a business, not a news source. They aren't enemies or allies.  If they want to throw some money and liberal bias our way...good for us. I know I am simplifying.  Bottom line...I don't care how long someone has been on the dark side.  If they wake up and see the light I will welcome them with open arms.

I'm done discussing this. This isn't about differing opinions...it's about a standard of judgement. The fact is that here and on many democratic sites Hillary has been judged more harshly, more negatively than an other potential candidate.  Her weaknesses get a glaring light and her accomplishments and attributes are undermined. If all the other candidates were judged in the same manner...not one of them would be suitable!

And Mediamatters.com is an awesome place to check out. Also read David Brocks, The Republican Noise Machine. That goes into great detail, almost too much about how the GOP has been calculating and planting conservative reporters into the mainstream for years. It'll take the Dems years if not decades to catch up and make it an even playing field--and Murdoch was part of that so screw his f'n money.

It doesn't surprise me that Murdoch wants Hillary to run for president because it would make his ratings higher at FOX. Listen all the networks really want is an exciting, race it's better for their ratings, more money for them. The problem with news it's all about bucks and not unbiased truth. And that sucks. Americans are getting fed all kinds of crap from Neocon implanted reporters inserted into the mainstream media.

Murdoch is not helping the dems by pumping money to Hillary. He's prostituting her and us to increase his bank roll. I don't want any part of it. 

There was an internal memo at Fox in the early days of Theft 2000 that instructed people to come up with hate filled spew.  Anything to upset people, make them very angry or scared.  When they see the advertisements they become more vulnerable because they are seeking comfort.  So the advertisers on faux get more bang.  Keep the viewers off center and grasping, and they can sell more consumer crap to them.  Nice philosophy.

Hillary has forgotten her mission.  I'm hoping she will return one day.