Mr. Dickerson is right. Hillary demonstrated all her assets, intelligence, poise, a sense of humor and the look of a president, not the "good ole boy look of Bush as we now must contend with, but the look of a dignified woman ready to lead, and hopefully gets that chance. She has a tall task if she becomes President--getting us out of the mess this administration got us into. But she has a wonderful magic bullet--Bill. He, as we know can charm anyone, and we can expect that he will do just that, restoring our image in the world. Please stop the petty criticism of her and her marriage. Guiliani, McCain, Gingrich, Thompson have personal histories far worse. So Bill Clinton strayed and she stood by him. That's not unusual, nor should it be a subject to exhaust when this woman is giving us the benefit of her extraordinary capabilites, even admired by her Senate Republican colleagues.

audiance that evaluated the candidated.....they say Obama lost and Edwards won....hillery got in one good joke.

All she showed was more of the same. Sarcasm, inability to really admit a mistake, and an insincere, plastic nature. As far as Bill is concerned, the "my dear husband" line would have me "sleeping" with one eye open if I were him.

You are very much like the husband who blames the wife for getting raped. This "kill the messenger-blame the victim" postulate of yours, does'nt hold water. You, like all the other "HIllary Haters" filter her through the same filthy prism, and the sad fact is, you're creating sympathy for her and badgering her ever higher in the polls.

Iowa shoud be a breeze for her.

Republicans actually have a shot. She didn't say anything she hasn't said a million times before. She didn't even try hard to hide her sarcasm. She didn't seem sincere, and she didn't admit that she was wrong or even really answer as to whether she read the NIE. She pretended she didn't have to, and that others could do ALL her fact finding and evaluation for her instead. If she were honest, she would admit that the reason the democrats who voted for that policy did so was because the American people were lied to and believed the lies already and that going up against the unvented anger of the people and their desire to pound ANYTHING after Sept. 11 would have been pretty politically suicidal. She didn't vote her conscience or even inform it. She voted the polls.

The best performance in the debate was turned in by Biden. His only mistake was in forgetting some costs of illegal entry and future illegal entry. Otherwise, he did exceedingly well.

The best performance of the day politically was turned in by Elizabeth Edwards. She told the truth, didn't miss a beat, didn't use rehearsed platitudes and was sincere.

I agree with you about Elizabeth Edwards, who looked grand, by the way. But everything you've said about Hillary is straight of the Scaife telex. For heavens sake, either find some substantive way to criticize her or move on to someone else.

What would be substantive in your opinion? Do I have to catch her red-handed committing a crime?

Why do you hold me to a higher standard than you hold Hillary? She put out all kinds of platitudes last night. There was no real substance. You ask no substance of her.

I thought Clinton did very well last night. I won't vote for her as I find her brand of "liberalism" a bit too corporate and her reassurances to AIPAC a bit too close to those of the neocons.

I also find it very interesting that many of her supporteres argue that a big asset on her side is her husband. Wow. So much for a feminist victory in Hillary's campaign.

>>I also find it very interesting that many of her supporteres argue that a big asset on her side is her husband. Wow. So much for a feminist victory in Hillary's campaign.

Why is this different than all those people who talk about Elizabeth Edwards as such a great asset for John Edwards?

I guess it is different because a woman being supportive of her husband and an asset to him isn't thought of so much as the wife being his brain.

Hillary does have her own brain, but a lot of her supporters are pretending they are reelecting Bill rather than believing they are electing Hillary. They might not support her if they felt she was the one they were really electing. If they do elect her, they are in for a rude awakening. The aren't getting Bill back.

I'm with you, LT-7. It's Clinton's job to convince us she's the one, and she hasn't done it, as far as I'm concerned. There just isn't enough in the + column for me. Right now, I'm inspired by Edwards. Obama isn't far behind.

If Hillary is a "winner", then why hasn't she run away with this thing? Why does Barack continue to receive the brunt of small contributions?

Yes, she's "polished." (She's had plenty of time to practice), but no candidate on the Democrat side polls as high on "negatives."

Why do you suppose the Republican National Committee has all but anointed her the nominee? Because they want to be trounced or is it because they believe they have enough dirt to bury her?

I agree, I think Hillary Clinton is incredible. She is a strong, capable woman. I think she did great in the debate with attacks from Edwards and Gravel, and surpringly she got a lot of name mentions in the Republican debate. As weird as it may, I think this may actually be helping her, you just hear her name more than other candidates.

In addition to the marriage issue, I think it's dumb that people are upset about her 20 year plan. So what? I think that's smart planning, being POTUS is a big job, and it's nice to know she has thought about it for 20 years.

-Narayana.

Have you? And what crime would that be? Being Hillary Clinton? You and others seem to have appointed yourselves judge and jury on her. And I wonder if all of you realize how small and petty it makes you look to the public at large. Loathing and fear are a package deal. And what standard would I hold you to? I haven't anything comparable, the bar is so low. If Hillary was handing out platitudes, all you seem to be providing is muckraking doggerals. Substance is self-evident, and from what I read, you are hardly the proper judge.

She's also had eight years in the White House, something that not a single Republican nominee has ever seen the inside of, so they would do well to tend to their own sorry lot and leave us to choose out candidate. As for the RNC they have quite enough on their shattered plate as it is.