On the one hand, the charges that everyone levels at Clinton about her doublespeak and inability to be "honest" ring true. Her response to the Clinton archive question last night was a republican's dream, and her illegals-with-licenses opinon could have been better articulated (though it did make sense: she wouldn't vote for it, but she understood what it was trying to do).

Hillary's problem isn't that she is "dishonest." Its that, much like Mitt Romney and John Kerry before her, she has trouble concealing it.

Unfortunately, politics is an inherently dishonest business. There is an American myth about some independent-minded, lone-ranger candidate striding into washington and cleaning the place up - someone who's just a regular guy with some smarts who truly cares and is human. America hasn't elected someone like this since at least Teddy Roosevelt, though more likely the last "real person" president we had was Andrew Jackson.

The "real guy" myth is now an image - a marketing ploy best used by republicans (Bush epitomizes this) to fool people into thinking they are genuine. The fact is most likely no one in this race is genuine, because genuine and honest people don't succeed in politics. I've resigned myself to voting for a person's brain, not their soul.

We all want some archetypal Mr. Smith to go to washington and defend the small-town American values and ideals that we often think we are voting to protect. If it ever will work that way, it won't happen overnight. Until it does, I'm voting for the person who is the best manager, scholar, and (yep) decider.

I think you are exactly right. As I noted in my Obama piece a day ago, the strategy here is for Obama to make Clinton's successful political instinct look especially deceitful.

increasingly look like nutballs. Ron Paul. Dare I mention H. Ross Perot?

Andy Jackson was a war hero elected for his personal "style" as much as his regular guy creds.

Abraham Lincoln was a regular guy -- who wouldn't have been electable in a race that wasn't a four-way race.

In a decade as a working journalist, I met three or four U.S. senators, two Missouri governors, and I interviewed former senator Paul Simon after the end of his presidential bid. All of them struck me as very honest and dedicated people, at least at the personal level. The art of modern politics in the U.S., at the national level, means that candidates frequently have to say things to get elected that they may or may not believe when they are off the podium. Bill Clinton was a master orator in part because he could do this and leave any crowd believing they we hearing the words that came out of his heart and soul, even if he didn't personally believe the words himself, or if they directly opposed something he'd said before. Does this mean Bill Clinton was a liar,or that all politicians are liars? My only honest answer to that question is, "I'm not sure." They do things professionally that would certainly be seen as lies in any other context, but are usually only seen as "strategy" in the context of a political campaign.

Personally, I quit listening to the speeches, per se, and started looking at a) track record; and b) platform. If a candidate has a sound track record and a platform I can agree with, that candidate can get my vote regardless of what they may say at the podium. If I were a Democrat voting in the current campaign, I'd have to favor Hillary Clinton over her biggest opponents, Edwards and Obama, simply because she has both a track record and a platform catering to the core of Democratic beliefs. She is debited by her husband's career, and by her vote in support of the war, which doesn't play well with some of the Democratic base.

If I were a Republican voting in the current election, I'd have to favor Rudolph Giuliani -- but there are few strong Repbulican candidates this season. Giuliani's track record doesn't play well with the Republican base, especially on issues such as gun control and abortion.

Personally, I think our next president is probably Hillary Clinton, but it's hard to tell beforehand -- I guess that's why they have the elections.

It's not?

Hillary is by far the worst of the Democrats her "pragmatic" stance on foreign policy is what got us into Iraq (and will get us into Iran).

Edwards and Obama may be lying to me too, but at least they are telling me what I want to hear.

Hillary can't do that. The reason that she doubletalks is because she is trying to tell every American what they want to hear, so she is for it but then she is against it. She understands the reason behind it but she won't vote for it. I am for it today because the people I am addressing have indicated that they are for it, but tomorrow I may be against it because the people that I am addressing have indicated that they are against it. You will never know what she is for, what she is against, what she will do in any circumstance because she is just vying for votes so that she can make history by becoming the first woman elected President.

yeah, that was pretty bad for Hillary. She's trying not to look soft on terror for the general election. Do I think she actually wants war with Iran? No. But Bush could still call the bluff, so I don't really think it was a smart choice at all.

I agree honesty isn't necessarily the best policy, and furthermore I don't think its terrible for candidates to play to a wide base. Utilitarianism isnt the worst policy ever invented. But yeah, hypocrisy is pretty common. Yes, its a problem for Edwards on poverty, but I don't hear a whole lot of people even talking about poverty, so at least he's willing to put it in the public forum. Barack Obama's new "tough" stance also comes to mind, because it looks like the politics of hope cant win the white house, as is evidence by the recent hillary attacks, not to mention the increasingly prevalent GOP attacks

"You will never know what she is for, what she is against"

I disagree. More to the point, I don't care.

Disagree: she is clearly for universal healthcare, expanded diplomatic efforts with Iran, troop reductions and a shift of strategy in Iraq, and immigration reform. Personally, that "immigration" question last night was a gotcha moment, because they were taking a minor, very specific example, and asking her to incorporate that into her own, broader ideas on immigration

Don't care: Well, just read my original post. She's obviously politically adept, an excellent strategist, and a good decision maker.

if by "expanded diplomatic efforts" with Iran you mean all but giving Bush permission to goto War there, I guess thats one definition

donnamp:

Hillary can't do that. The reason that she doubletalks is because she is trying to tell every American what they want to hear, so she is for it but then she is against it. She understands the reason behind it but she won't vote for it. I am for it today because the people I am addressing have indicated that they are for it, but tomorrow I may be against it because the people that I am addressing have indicated that they are against it. You will never know what she is for, what she is against, what she will do in any circumstance because she is just vying for votes so that she can make history by becoming the first woman elected President.

If you're going to make a sweeping claim like this, some examples would be nice.

djyman15: if by "expanded diplomatic efforts" with Iran you mean all but giving Bush permission to goto War there, I guess thats one definition Well, yeah voting for that was stupid. I think Biden expressed all of our concerns about that best, and he's clearly talking saner foreign policy than Hillary is. I kinda wish he was the one in front instead of her, but for some reason that just ain't happening. Bill and Hillary have always been more moderate than Liberal, foreign policy included, and this exemplifies that. I'm annoyed about that, but I'm not deathly upset about her vote for it for the following reasons 1. If Bush wants to bomb, he will bomb. This resolution would only give him rhetorical justification - its not playing any role in the determination of whether to start a war or not. 2. I think a president Clinton or a President Biden would face the same choices in Iran regardless of who is in office, and would use more or less the same diplomatic and military tools. Thus, the resolution is a short-term problem. That said, there are some serious consequences to calling a nation's army a terrorist organization and we shouldn't have done it. But Hillary is only alienating Obama supporters, who will most likely vote for her anyway when she gets the nomination.

jwschmidt, I definitely see you points, and we all know Bush will bomb who he wants to. I just don't like that she endorsed it, especially after all her negative rhetoric after the way that worked for the Iraq War. Furthermore, when did diplomacy become threatening to go to war with someone? It's not like we stopped buying oil from them, and the sanctions we've imposed seemed to be aimed not at the government, but at military groups, who I assume do not control nuclear spending. Furthermore, no one in Europe is behind us, and we haven't really done anything about that. (can we even at this point?) Its just all very disconcerting, and it bothers me that it seems like everyone is trying to sanction Iran without losing a penny in the process. Can't have it all