I think the readers of Slate are a little too sophisticated to fall for the viral marketing efforts behind the quixotic candidacy of Ron Paul.

Sometimes referred to as "Dr. No" because he votes against anything he believes violates the Constitution as it was orginally written, Paul might appeal to conservatives who would like a return to the Fifties, but he is in serious need of a history lesson.

The beauty of the Constitution and of our government is that it evolves as times and needs change. It hasn't been evolving much lately thanks to the current White House gang, but there's hope for the future after last November's results.

People like Paul, while they may be principled, are also inflexible and hardly the leaders this nation needs to start moving forward again.

As to Ms. Clinton, the actual subject of this story, I have heard her speak several times. She does not have the command and charisma her husband has when he walks into the room, but she is intelligent and thoughtful, characteristics sorely lacking in our current President.

Al Gore and John Kerry weren't great speakers either, but just think how much better things would be today if people had voted for either one of them instead of Bush.