"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."

--Christopher Hitchens

If Hitchens and Hillary were debating, for example, whether or not the US should withdrawal from Iraq and he brought up the Sir Edmund Hillary story, that would be an ad hominem attack.

Since the topic here is Hillary's fitness to be president, I don't think his comments should be viewed as an ad hominem attack.

Hitchens has pointed out a number of not-very-pretty episodes from the past of the Clintons in general, and Hillary in particular. Casualness with the truth, and hardball politics against detractors, may, or may not, depending upon one's views, be relevant to a person's fitness for the presidency. If one views them as relevant, which Hitchens apparently does, they are hardly the classic ad hominem attack, which means attacking a person instead of their position, just for the sake of attacking them.

Personally, I recognize Hillary (and Bill's) shortcomings, but I don't think it necessarily precludes her from being a good president. And in many respects, our system of election and media over-exposure makes it difficult to be successful without some rough and tumble. Not saying I prefer it that way, but since when has honesty in campaigning and playing as a good sport got anyone anywhere? John McCain and John Kerry are two of the most honest, decent men in national politics in recent years, and look what the Rove team did to them.

...he gives, and has given, ample reasons over the years to despise Hillary and Jethro...

...a person from their positions, especially when discussing politicians? Aren't their behavior, ethics, attitudes, and positions all part of the same fabric?

As long as the claims are true, is it even possible to talk about ad hominems when discussing politicians?

Good points... Casualness with the truth about insignificant anecdotes (her name, etc.) pale in comparison to lies about threats (Iraq) and war. Not to mention deceit in the areas of national energy policy, etc.

For all the shortcomings of the Clinton-led health care reform effort, at least we (the public) had visibility into the process -- and could therefore reasonably decide if the results of that process were good or bad. This administration doesn't even think the public has the right to know who advices and helps formulate policy ... (again - energy).

I'd most certainly take Hillary over what we have now.

But again, I'd take spit and sand over what we have now.

Yes. If you politically attack because of views that any other person could express, it's not ad hominem. If you hold one individual to a standard that you don't hold others to (please read "Bush" or "Obama" or whomever you'd like here), that's an ad hominem attack.

Hitchens wants to sell books. Sensationalism sells. Therefore, financial victory.