Most telling I think was the comment of the Clinton campaign as it sought to recover from her very weak performance. They emphasized the campaign's need for more money. This from the campaign that has garnered record levels of contributions and by all accounts leads all others.

Clearly, the campaign wanted to retreat to its strength--cash raising activites--not its weak point--its candidate.

Jim Moser, Crofton, USA/MD

Ross Perot syphoned off votes from the Republican Party. Had he not run, a Republican would have won, not Bill Clinton.

Steven, Youngstown, OH

"We already know that Muslim terrorists want to see Democrats in power so they can safely resume massive terror bombing of the United States and other countries around the world."

You do? How do you know that? Have lots of friends that are Muslim terrorists?

Or did you hear that talking point from the GOP…whose competence on terrorism-related issues is seriously open to question?

Dave, Newfields, NH

If further proof is needed that Brits and other Europeans have a scanty knowledge and poor understanding of American politics and American political history it is Mr. Baker's comment that without Ross Perot's candidacy Clinton would have won a majority. The truth is most of the votes for Perot were made in lieu of voting for Bush.

Dave, Katy, Texas, USA

I complete agree with your article except for the part where you stated that Slick Willie would had won with a majority if Perot had not run. The only reason Slicky won was because Perot run and took Republican and/or Coservative votes from Bush

Carlos M. Alonso, Lake Worth, USA/FL

I personally thank the Republicans for electing someone as incompetent as George Bush. Without his lowering of the bar for becoming President, Hillary's ascension would not be possible. Thank you! I also want to thank President Bush for decimating the Republican party name and image to the point where the Democrats are raising far more money than the Republicans. Outstanding! The leading contender for theRepublican nomination is a pro-abortion, thrice-divorced, gay friendly, self absorbed man whose own children won't talk to him. Now tell me again, who is going to be elected President? I feel sorry for the real Republicans who wedded themselves to the Southern Baptist wingnuts and their man, George Bush. It must be painful to watch this meltdown.

Mike Bewley, Austin, Texas. USA

Funny how you right-wingers can so blithely ignore facts. Must be the same gene that causes you venerate your heroes as Gods. (Witness the deification of Ronald Reagan, which is almost childish in its wide-eyed wonder). Me? I know Bill Clinton was no god. Decent president, though. And every credible analysis shows what I said is true. Bush 41 would have needed 2/3 of the Perot votes to swing his way, and no pollster accepts that scenario. Perotistas were voting for change. If Perot wasn't on the ballot, some large number of them stay home, and half of the rest hold their nose and try the new guy from Arkansas. Just because Sean Hannity repeats a fallacy 50 times doesn't make it a fact. You can still hate Clinton, but don't hate reality. It's basic mathematics. Anyone living in America in 1992 can only be lying if they can fathom a reasonable scenario in which Bush gets re-elected. Next you'll tell me Bush 43 could win if he were running next year, too. Have some intellectual honesty.

Nelson, Bethlehem, PA

By the way, the only president in modern times who was elected thanks to a third party candidate was George W. Bush. Even if you accept the Supreme Court's highly disputed 5-4judgment to stop counting in Fla, Bush won that state by 533 votes. Left-wing icon Ralph Nader got more than 100,000 votes in Florida. So let's assume Nader doesnt run. To win, Gore needs less than one half of one percent of these traditionally democratic voters. The irony is that Nader ran on the Green party ticket -- and ruined the chances of the greatest green hero of them all.

I do agree that the process Hillary is going through is quite instructive and useful. If she can't handle it, she has no business running. I think she'll be fine. The bigger question is how thin-skinned Giuliani responds when NY firefighters "swift boat" him and his 9/11 nonsense. He's despised as a grandstander by NY firefighters. They're just biding their time to expose him.

Nelson, Bethlehem, PA

Obama is the only candidate who embodies the change desperately needed. He is an idealist, America is not loosing world leadership because its lacking in wealth or weak in military might. It has lost its anchor on idealism to political and corporate strategists whose goal is political power to harness economic dominance.

But if America does not recapture its Ideals, India and China will soon be the economic power houses, after that military might will be of no consequence.

Its tragic that the current political shallowness of winning does not allow thoughtful political process for the electrorate

Feb Moria, Atlanta, GA

I think they're all stunted. There's a Politician-Persona. Their thinking isn't very advanced. There's something simplistic about it. It's as though they are still in high-school or college.

This is a very well rounded article. Maybe I mean coherant and cohesive and just the right number of words.

The comments are childish and speak about Hillary as though they know her; snide. And when these people get elected, their actions aren't exactly statesman-like.

It is perceptive, about women, to say that. Until we get a better foothold into places of power, structurally, we may have use a duality.

Thanks for a great article, Gerard Baker.

Mariam K, Potomac, Md. US

I would be very proud to have Hillary Clinton as our next President. She is clearly the most qualified; clearly the most honest and straightforward about her proposals and how she intends to accomplish them, right down to how she intends to pay for each one. John Edwards has never gained any traction. He isn't leading anywhere, not in one single state,
not even in his homestate of South Carolina where he is polling at SEVEN PERCENT. And he has lost his minimal lead in Iowa. And he has very little money.

He can rant and rave and think he's got the answer to bringing down Hillary with that absurd little video his team put together of her debate comments. Hillary has bigger fish to fry.

John Edwards will not be the next President of the United States.

Danny McEwan, Dubuque, Iowa

Hillary is the only one who can credibly claim to having been co-president for 8 years. The Clinton years were good years, and her entire appeal is based on the notion of getting Bill Clinton back in the White House. Her two dem rivals are just first term senators (one is also a failed VP candidate).

George Roach's comment -"You miss the key fact that the three key candidates for the Democratic nomination are all first term senators with no experience "

Andrew P, Alexandria, VA

Hah, did someone just compare Thatcher with Liddy Dole? I think this graphic describes Dole quite well --> http://bp2.blogger.com/_oWhSrKB9upo/RoR3HixebMI/AAAAAAAAAAk/uXzexC-0tjg/s1600-h/DoleAccomplish1.JPG

I'm guessing Dole's office doesn't concider Dole's failed tenure as NRSC Chair, when she lost her party 6 seats, as an accomplishment.

However, if you check her biography now, the accomplishments section has been removed, which tells me that her office would rather remove the accomplishments section all together than think up of any accomplishments to list.

Sean, Washington, D.C., United States

Hillary Clinton will win the presidency by a landslide. During the debate she held her own even while she was attacked by all the men even the ones asking the questions. Before men felt that women were a threat and started burning them at the stake they ruled. Face it men your afraid.
Lori L McMaster, washington State

Lori McMaster, Langley, United States, Washington

To Kelly in Greensboro:
The Republicans do have a Lady Thatcher: Mrs. Elizebeth Dole. You want tough. . .?

Nick, Woodbridge, Virginia

I think I speak for the majority of woman when I say, "It is time for a woman in the White House. However, and unfortunately, I can't vote for Hillary." I am sad. I am very sad.

Nancy Anderson, Cincinnati, Ohio

Your historical figures are enlightening but I'm using a more basic approach - 100% of our previous presidents have been white males - I project that the next one will be also.

James Origer, Trinity, Florida

Neither will she be able to beat Mitt Romney. Save all you hot air, polls, and everything else re: the presidential race because Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States...and you can take that to the bank!

Tom S., Spring Hill, Florida

I sure wish that we had our own Lady Thatcher. Shw would surely get my vote as well as a landslide of my fellow Americans.

But alas, as it stands, it is up to the male Republicans to take her out. So be it. her blinding ambition will surely be her undoing.

Kelly, Greensboro, NC, USA.

Hillary will not win due to her stance on illegal immigration. She will win the Democratic Primary. However, she will not win the general election. She is out of step with the US voters on this issue.

Scott, Phoenix, AZ USA

To Jan in Nashua,
Here is a place you can look to see where the spin on Hillary getting beaten up on by men....... according to the NY times, it's coming from her.

The New York Times reported that Clinton's campaign officials tried to create sympathy for Hillary the same way they did when Republican Rick Lazio confronted her during their 2000 Senate race. A Clinton adviser told The Washington Post that, "Ultimately, it was six guys against her, and she came off as one strong woman." A headline on the Drudge Report said: "Scorn: As the Men Gang Up."

Gregg, Denver, CO

Sorry, Robert Bennett. Mr. Baker was referring to democrat presidents who won a MAJORITY of the vote. Woodrow Wilson did not win a majority of the popular vote in either 1912 or 1916.

Louis Acker, Creston, NC

Umm...without Ross Perot in 1996, Clinton would likely not have won. Perot took votes from the Republican side.

In 2000, Nader may have been the third party candidate that took a majority win away from the Dems.

Joel, Tempe, Arizona

I've voted Republican in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections - the exception being '92, when I switched to Clinton at the last minute because I was disgusted by Bush/Powell's "highway of death" strategy at the end of the first gulf war. I disliked Hillary when she was a power-hungry first lady because she hadn't been elected by anyone (& couldn't be fired). I assume that had Dennis Thatcher presumed to make policy pronouncements he'd have been roundly (& rightly) criticized. But now that Hillary is running on her own, I have grown to respect her. I certainly don't count her ambition against her - that's the nature of a successful politician. I still disagree with her on most domestic issues and am inclined to vote GOP again, but I've crossed over once before and can conceive of doing so again. If the GOP candidate seems likely to get us into any more foreign entanglements or plays upon racial divisions I could vote Democrat for the first time in 16 years.

Olaf, Minneapolis, MN USA

Gerard Baker's main point is wrong. Hillary Clinton was forced to backtrack from her (bogus) claim that the other candidates ganged up on her because she's a woman. Women were her biggest critics for crying "poor me". And the other candidates are not apologizing.

Sophia, Waitsfield, Vermont

The only problem I have with this article is that Mr. Baker is wrong about Clinton's win in '92. Without Mr. Perot, Bill Clinton may have still been elected President but would not have gone over the 50% mark. If Perot had not run and 6 out of 10 Perot voters had voted for Bush then Bush would have won the presidency with 50.4% of the vote and it is likely that more than 60% of Perot's supporters were Republican-leaning.

Mark, Scottsdale, USA/AZ

Eugene - put the cool aid down. The Republican Party today is far more conservative now than it was 40 years ago. Lincoln would be considered right of Reagan by today's modern liberals. The coalition that makes up the Republican party is the same coalition that decided to declare independency from Great Britian. I am a history and political science major. It is obvious you are not!

Mark, Scottsdale, USA/AZ

First, I think Gerard Baker is wrong in saying FDR won it four times.. He was voted into an extraordinary third term(two terms in the presidental limit) because of the war. Second, Hillary Clinton was rightly attacked by Edwards and Obama on her slipperiness on important issues. What surprises me at the Philadelphia debate is that nobody brught up the fact that she voted for the Iraq war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate, That document gravely undermined Bush's reasons for invasion. Clinton, I feel, will defeat herself. My bet is for John Edwards to come through the middle after a voting deadlock on Obama and he r at the Democratic nomination convention. A strong hunch, nothing more. Manuel. Tronto

manny escott, toronto, ontario,canada

I'm interested in knowing exactly how you came to this conclusion watching the Clinton "piling On" video:
"They issued a video after the debate that emphasised the narrative - Little Woman Waylaid by Big Bullies."

What I saw in the video was a few of Clinton's opponents say her name some 30+ times. Then I heard her say that there was a reason she was getting so much attention.

Did you take that to mean..."I'm getting so much attention from these guys because I'm a woman"?

I didn't hear one word about gender. Does she have a female opponent? Aren't all her opponents men?

She goes after ONE guy, and ONE guy only. It's the guy whose JOB she wants.

They go after her because they want HER current "job" -- the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and the front runner for the WH.

Please explain how you watched the "piling on" video and came to the conclusion that it had anything to do with men vs. woman, rather than winner vs. losers

Jan, Nashua, NH

It's amazing how Bush's enablers (the Republican majority on the Supreme Court and Scott from San Francisco) continue to try to perpetuate the myth that Bush won the election in 2000. No matter how many times the Bushies say it, it ain't true. So the big lie won't stick no matter how many times Republican hacks mouth it.

Bush was appointed President by a Republican Supreme Court that couldn't abide the procedure Americans have used for over 200 years to settle close elections. We let local election officials recount the votes. In this case, however, the Supreme Court carried out its own little putsch. Some day it will come back to haunt Republicans because what goes around comes around. Of course, it's already come back to haunt the American people, who have had to put up with Bush and his cronies as a result.

History and the American people have made their judgment on Bush, and it isn't a pretty one. Oh, and for the record, I'm not voting for Hillary either.

Gary, USA/VA,

For those of you across the pond that think Shrillary is a shoe-in, think again. Manyt American women loathe her, and 50% wouldn't even consider voting for her. That doesn't leave a lot of room for error. Whoever the republican candidate is, they will likely win by a fair margin.

Vince, Cleveland, OH USA

Vince, Parma, OH USA

Nice commentary but your history is flawed. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat elected in 1912 and again in 1916.

Robert Bennett, Collegeville, Pa

John I'm sorry but Bill clinton has a better then 60% approval rating. I'm not sure what you meant by your comments. Hillary has a good chance of winning. People are interested in policies and not rumor and speculation. Most people want to return to the same economic prosperity we had under Clinton. After all will the republicans have anything NEW to say about her from what they have been saying the past 14 yrs? No?

Salita, charlotte, US, NC

Hillary chances of winning the 2008 election is not a sure thing - four possible events could trip up the Clinton's. One - the pending Iranian question has the makings off seriously dividing the Democrats creating serious division amongest the MoveOn wing and the liberals. Two - the issue of taxation and the economy will remain a serious contention amongest the middle class. Thirdly - the amount of dirt that the Republicans will dig up specifically on Hillary - can her reputation survive amongest the Soccer Mums? Lastly - the health of Bill himself - can Bill survive the boxing ring over the next 12 months? Will Americans elect a widow?

Hillary would be better placed taking up the Vice Presidency and teaming up with Obama - this combination will give the Americans a far better opportunity.

The reality is that we cannot afford a Democrat presidency that will be idealistic and accomodating. We don't want a popular America loved by all, but a USA that will provide security.

John Catsicas, Johannesburg, South Africa

You are kidding, right. Bill Clinton would never have won without Ross Perot!

John, Cleveland, Ohio

When Hilary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination it won't be because she is a woman. It will be because she has the best track record.

I hope she will become president and that she will implement radical health care reform so that every American will have access to decent health care regardless of their income.

Liam Baxter, Glasgow, UK

As long as the US military is still stuck in Iraq, the republicans have no chance in 2008. Add to this an imminent recession in 2008 (talk about bad timing), and a democrat president looks increasingly attractive.

The GOP no longer has Karl Rove putting wedge issues on ballots in 11 swing states - playing the evangelicals like a finely tuned violin. In fact, no GOP candidate is in position to electrify the evangelicals this time around.

And to all of you southern trailer-trash types wailing about Ross Perot costing Poppy Bush the election in 1992 - buy yourselves a clue. Perot was positioning himself as an alternative to the status quo (which was Bush). Those voting for Perot were inclined to vote AGAINST the status quo (again, Bush). This is just common sense. To date, nobody has produced ANY empirical evidence that Perot cost Bush enough electoral votes to sway the final election results in 1992. Certainly there is no scientific evidence that Perot cost Dole in 1996.

Jissoji, Dallas, Texas

Obviously you don t like Hillary Clinton. America is a very odd country and I am not sure what they really think of their political system. It seems that the majority would rather ignore it. But in a country the size and complexity of America, with so many highly educated people, there is something surreal about Obama and Clinton as the main Democratic presidential contenders. I don t need an explanation myself.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Excuse me, but the elections of 2000 and 2004 were quite fair, and have been analyzed to death. Bush won both times, legally and fairly. What the Supreme Court did in 2000 was stop endless recounts in selected Florida counties until Gore "won" enough votes to win. Bush won by about 500 votes. Our system copes with this; it's happened before and will again.

Americans tend to like divided government. We don't particularly like the results of one party holding the executive and legislative bodies. The Democrats may well have a larger majority in Congress after the next election, but if they do they will probably have to work with a Republican president - hopefully the first Italian-American one.

Scott, San Francisco, USA

Hillary won't win if the election depends on my vote. I am not one of the women who think she would make a good president. She will do and say anything to get elected. In short, she is whatever way the wind blows which is a scary thought if she were the Commander and Chief.

Gloria, Pittsburgh, USA/PA

There is no question that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democratic party at this point. The problem is, that she makes the Democratic party most vulnerable. National polls indicate that a race against Guiliani or others may provide a very narrow margin of support in the polls.

If this is the case, as a Democrat, I am very concerned that localized vote fraud in a belt from Indiana to Texas may provide a margin of victory for the Republican candidate.

Karl Eysenbach, Eugene, OR USA

Libertarians are not a part of GOP coalition this year. Libertarians, by their virtue do not support a party, which allows its leader, the President of United States to eviscerate US Constitution.

Small Business, which leaned Republican in the last two Election cycle is also at odds with Bush as they did not benefit from Bush tax cuts and majority of their clients had seen their income remain stagnant and savings reduced EVERY year of Bush Administration.

THAT is different from the previous years. Additionally, it would have been unfair to even suggest that the GOP of yeasteryear have anything to do with today's GOP. Abraham Lincoln would have been seen as a LIBERAL today. Most Republican leaders before 1980s could (and should) have been confused for Libertarians or Democrats. Today's GOP is filled with dixiecrats, conservatives, neocons, evangelic fundamentalists, who would elsewhere be on the margins of the political life

Eugene, Aventura, Florida

Remember Hillary's friend Patrick Monihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts!" Please try to keep an open, "questioning" mind as we go forward toward the 2008 election. Not just the USA is involved here, but the whole world. It is imperitive that we elect a person, not a party! As I read blogs by supposedly bright people, I am struck by the hotter they get under the collor, the farther their arguements straigh from the truth. Check it out.

Helen Salinas , Las Vegas, US/NV

In order for Clinton to have not defeated Bush in 1992, over 80% of Perot voters would have to have voted for Bush instead, and this is with the unlikely assumption that all Perot voters would have voted at all if Perot were not in the race. Taking that into account, it is highly unlikely that Perot took that election from Bush, though of course it would have been closer.

Erik Grow, Centreville, VA

It's amusing that about half the bloggers and columnists have been saying "Shame on those Mean Men for Bullying Hillary" and the other half are saying "She's in Politics and All's Fair". I must say I agree with the latter.

It would be foolish of Senator Clinton's opponents to keep mollycoddling her. If they have a bone to pick, go for it! They won't make any points by opening all the doors for her. Conversely, the only way she's going to win this election (if she does) and, more importantly, the one to come is to start fielding some of the hardballs. She needs to exercise her ability to hit back so she doesn't lose it.

If she can't defend herself among her own, she certainly won't be able to do it against the Swift Boating, Karl Rove types who are just waiting to start pounding her.

We need all the candidates to defend their positions and to call out the others who aren't being straight with us so that we can make an informed choice. Hillary can take care of herself.

Verna Caruso, Williamsport, PA

J. H. Cohen is exactly right. George Bush Sr. lost in 1992 because Ross Perot took most of the votes away from him. That is why Hillary's people are hoping for a 3rd party candidate to enter, because she will not be able to beat Rudy Guiliani in a straight up race.

Patrick Verdi, Holly Springs, North Carolina

"Bill Clinton surely would have won a majority in 1996 had it not been for the late entry of the quixotic Ross Perot as a third-party candidate."

Not quite. If it weren't for Ross Perot, Bill Jeff would still be trolling trailer parks for Arkansas poon.

Chris, New York, USA

Nelson, There never would have been a chance at a second term without Perot so you set up a strawman argument.

HDD, DFW,

Mr. Baker is not correct when he says that Bill Clinton would have had a much larger percentage of the popular vote had it not been for the candidacy of Ross Perot. Almost every credible analyst of American politics attributes George Bush's loss to Perot, which suggests that Clinton would not have won the presidency but for Perot, and owes his election to that man. Perot took huge numbers away from Bush. Had he not been in the race, Bush would have most certainly been re-elected in 1992.

J.H. Cohen, J.D., Ph.D.

J.H. Cohen, J.D., Ph.D., New York, USA/NY

The Democratic coalition is inherently unstable. From anti-free trade labor unions, to the wacky Left's negotiate everything at all costs with hat in hand. The world would see a retreat of US influence, of US power, of US values, and whose values would fill that void? The retreat of the US behind higher tariff' walls, with mealy mouthed dependence on UN Resolutions, might re-create all the aspects of the 1930's with its terrifying consequences.
The Alternative world sought by pacifist Europe isn't simply removing the irritants of current American policy, but all the influence of China with its Darfor blindness, the power of Putin, with Europe on the end of his gas lines, on the ascent. European's elite sympathize with America the victim after 9-11, but the world as seen by Europeans is not the endless EU conferences on resolving and standardizing plumbing fixtures.
Bet on the "Strong Horse", and hope its American!! The best "Strong Horse" seen in human history.

Ken Dueck, Centennial, USA

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is Queen! You miss the key fact that the three key candidates for the Democratic nomination are all first term senators with no experience in foreign relations. Only they can make each other look good or competent.

None of them offet any hope of competently dealing with the future crisis over Iran and the Middle East. None of them are likely to evoke any respect from Middle East leaders.

There is a renewed interest in the Democratic Party to tax and spend. The likely result of a Democratic victory is that the U.S. will withdraw, isolate and build a huge but ineffective 'Maginot Line' of domestic infrastructure against terrorism. However effective such a public works program will prove to protect the U.S., it seems clear that Europe will be less safe as a result.

George

Dallas, Texas

George Roach, Dallas, Texas USA

Matt from Philadelphia is promoting a right-wing fallacy when he says Perot got Clinton elected. In the '96 election, Perot and Dole combined did not win as many votes as Clinton. That is fact. Clinton got 49.2% and Dole only 39% and Perot just over 8%. (minor candidates won over 1%). In a two man race, even If you give ALL Perot's votes to Dole (an absurd notion), Clinton wins with over 50%. In '92, after a term in office, George Bush was only able to secure about 37% of the vote, a historic repudiation of an incumbent. Perot got 19% and Clinton 43%. Many of the Perot voters were disgusted by Washington insiders (poster boy: Bush) and desperate for dramatic change. If Perot didn't run, it's folly to think that 2/3 of these would have voted for Bush (which is what he would have needed to beat Clinton). Every exit poll showed the Perot voter breakdown (between Clinton and Bush) was closer to 50/50. Unlike Nader in 2000, Perot didn't swing the election. But who needs facts?

Nelson, Bethlehem, PA

Hillary also has Sandy Berger as one of her "unofficial advisors" -- not official, mind you, because then someone might think she is actually taking the advice of this former top aide to her husband. Berger was convicted of stealing and DISPOSING OF classified documents.from the National Archives (prior to the 9/11 commission hearings) and then lying about it. But hey--not to worry--he's not an fficial advisor.

Mary, Daytona Beach, USA / FL

"...Bill Clinton surely would have won a majority in 1996 had it not been for the late entry of the quixotic Ross Perot as a third-party candidate."

Right... if Ross Perot wouldn't have run, we wouldn't be talking about Hillary today.

Mike, Clarkston, MI

"Margaret Thatcher could beguile any opponent with her feminine wiles even as she demonstrated repeatedly that she was the proud owner of the largest pair of steel balls in the Cabinet".
That made me laugh, well written!

D Case, Newquay,

It is well understood here that in 1996 Ross Perot took many many more votes from the Republican candidate Bob Dole, than he did from President Clinton. He appealed primarily to the libertatrians ,and to the fiscal conservatives, who tend to vote Republican. (While we're at it, he did the same in 1992, which enabled Bill Clinton to be elected in the first place.)

Matt, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Hilary will win. Can you honestly see anyone democratic who has the money, political machine or profile to beat her? For that matter I can't see many republicans who have got much of a chance against her. I am not sure how much it has to do with her being a woman though - in most cases it would be a disadvantage, but Hilary is just a much smoother operator than most.

From a British perspective you have to hope for Hilary. The republicans have gone a bit crazy; from this side of the pond they seem like a strange cult. I think a little middle of the road, pragmatic realpolitik is in order. Enough war on this, crusade on that. It's dangerous and makes things worse.

Iheart Hill , London,

Elizabeth I did not "softly remind her courtiers that she had the body of a weak and feeble woman". This is part of the speech she is supposed to have given (though its authenticity has been doubted) to her forces at Tilbury when the Spanish Armada was on the way, and would have been delivered in ringing tones!

Oliver Dickinson, Haxby, UK

We already know that Muslim terrorists want to see Democrats in power so they can safely resume massive terror bombing of the United States and other countries around the world. If Americans are foolish enough to vote Hillary into power, then they deserve the massive terrorism that will surely follow. I just hope they start with Democrat cities first.

Howard, Bogalusa , US/La

Of course she'll do anything to win... name me a leader, democratic or authoritarian who won't? It goes with the territory.

Whello, Piddlebury, NM

I agree with the author. She will say anything that she thinks will help her win. She herself is a contradicition. While she trys to act like shes one of us, her cold demeanor suggests its a real effort for her.

She came from Arkansas, married a future President. As his star and time in office waned she manuevered herself into NY politics. Mind you she didn't give a damn about the people of NY, but the political clout and press "got her a job" as Senator there. It wasn't for the people of NY. It was for the state's electoral votes. Shes from Arkansas..what possible leadership other than name could she bring to NY. The two states and citizens are worlds apart.

The real credence to my statements here is. If she really cared so much for NY...why doesn't she stay Senator there....why...because all along...that wasn't her plan.

Murph, Madisonville, USA/KY

Hilary is a shoo in whatever case you may make. In any case, it is not unlikely there will be a third party candidate enxt year: Ron paul, as a Libertarian or Bloomberg as an Independent, for instance. No way will Hilary lose a fair election - that is the question you should be focussing upon. neither 2000 or 2004 were fair.

oldasiahand, Guildford, UK

I don't believe that Hillary can win. It is not that she is a woman, but rather that she is a Clinton, and Clintons still have a great deal of antipathy among many voters in the US

John Burke, Santa Cruz, California USA