should be changed to the artful dodger.  She refused to answer a number of questions during Wednesday nights debate.  For instance: 

1.She refused to answer whether she would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of her first term as president, IF nominated and ELECTED in 2008.  Maybe we should just change the Constitution, all vote to re-elect Bush, and we'll get the same exact result in 2013.  Her position not to take a stance is troubling - and how any Democrat could support her who is anti-war is beyond me. 
2.She ducked the question of whether Israel had the right to bomb Iran if the country posed a nuclear threat.
3. "She dodged when asked what she would "put on the table" to save Social Security, such as a proposal to raise Social Security taxes on incomes above $97,000. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility," she said, adding, "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president."

"Clinton's refusal to commit to some policy specifics is both tactical and principled, her advisers insist. They said that while she is reluctant to give Republicans ammunition to use in a general election, she also resists committing to specifics on many matters that could later impede her ability to do her job as president."

So, are we to elect her with a blank slate of stances on critical issues so as to not "impede her ability to do her job as president?"  I don't think so.

But of course, none of this will be discussed during the fall 2008 election IF she is our nominee.  She'll be too busy playing defense as she is bombarded with questions regarding Rose Law Firm Billing Records, Travelgate, her profit on the cattle futures deal (my particular favorite -I wonder if she could give me some pointers on how to make a quick buck in pork bellies?), Vince Foster, and White Water.

And did anyone notice that Congressman Henry Waxman has subpoenaed all of President Clinton's records from the National Archives relating to President Clinton's Office of Political Affairs.  And all of this will dredge up all the old Clinton scandals - and make her meassage of being an instument of change ring hollow.  And God knows what is in there about Hil. 

And if you think the ad posted on the RPVA website about Warner was horrible, you ain't seen nothing yet if Hillary is our nominee.

Check out the two links:

http://news.yahoo.co...

http://news.yahoo.co...

 

Hillary's popularity is growing and her answers are mature, intelligent and reasoned to me. 

Quit your worrying, she'll do just fine.

If Hillary's the nominee, she's going to take the fight right at the Republicans.  Hillary Clinton is one of the best vetted candidates Democrats have ever had; she's been through the ringer, taken everything they can throw at her, and is still going strong.  "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" definitely applies to Hillary Clinton.

Lowell I respect your view of HRC but could not disagree with you more. The debate demonstrated alot of what people have felt about her very controlled and fence sitting agenda of never really coming off the fence to offend any special interest. Fact remains the Library issue as well as the donor issue are of great concern and if people demand to know what in those documents concerns her why should they be withheld? The other Dems are beginning to show a willingness to challenge her now in her portrayal as a uniter, she is not. There are countless examples of her inability to lead from a standpoint of concensus among differing parties, healthcare was just the one mentioned in the debate. Lowell if a moderate/conservative emerges from the Republicans, I fail to see how she will get the Independent vote at all. Perception unfortunately is everything and in six months she has the same negatives so is she winning people over from the middle or is she banking that she will be able to gravitate back to the center during the general. Bill could pull that off but I just do not think Hillary can at this point but of course there is lots of time. If there is one person who could and would out debate her on the "impact" of potential solutions to issues it is Newt and most independents I know and work with on local projects are watching his American Solutions with greater interest than they have had with Thompsons entry.

...Hillary's been getting stronger and stronger the more people get to know her (same thing that happened in New York, btw).  Heck, she's even leading in Virginia right now over all the top Republicans.  As far as other Democrats challenging her, of course they are; she's the front-runner after all so what choice do they have?  Finally, I would point out that Hillary has one huge advantage going for her -- the country's best political mind is her top advisor.  As I've said many times, I'd never bet against a Clinton, certainly not Bill.

I liked Richardson in that debate, but I have to admit I was impressed with HRC.  Really, why should she, as a candidate, commit to a date certain by which all U.S. troops would be redeployed out of Iraq?  And why should she give a blanket endorsement for Israel to bomb Iran if Israel "believes" that its national security is threatened?  Either statement could have negative real world consequences in the future, especially if it looks like she is going to be elected.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that those kinds of judgments should only be made based on the best intelligence available and the circumstances at the time. 

Anyway, we've seen how little those kinds of statements in a debate setting are worth -- such as George W. Bush's promises that he would not engage in "nation building."  Do political debates really tell us anything about what a politician is going to do in the future?  Or are they just a way to see how the candidates handle themselves and the press under pressure?

So for those reasons, I was surprised when Richardson said yes to that question about Israel taking military action against Iran.  Hmm.  My thought at the time was that he is much more experienced in foreign relations that HRC, and that he maybe he has thought that subject through more than she has. 

I don't see this Gingrich pitch winning votes within the GOP at the present time.  Many GOPers are still in denial about this presidency, which frankly is the most corrupt in our history (a comparison that acknowledges Grant and Harding -- some rather sad parallels with this president in terms of a fondness for the sauce and a valuation of short-sighted loyalty over competency in subordinates).

I don't see Gingrich winning with most independents either at this stage.  I'm sure Gingrich means what he says, but I don't think a large majority of independents will buy this reinvention  -- not given Gingrich's history. 

Perhaps he's making a play for 2012 with this centrist repositioning.  If things break as expected in 2008, it's likely that the GOP will be more receptive to his message at a later stage.

Newt just said recently that there is an 80% chance that a democrat will win the presidency...if Hillary wins, she will be there 8 years so I don't know what this chump is really doing.  Newt has no chance against any of our top 3.

that wily Newt has no chance in 2008. Memories are short; he knows how to pitch a strong, patriotic message of positive change, he will go after the African-American and Latino vote with no holds barred, he sounds as much a "straight talker" as McCain ever did, he has already put up on his blog a drafy policy for what must be done from the top down. He would be a formidable candidate when the Murdoch Media roars in with all-Newt stauration.

There had better be enough support from the party at large because independents pose the biggest threat to any of the top three. Independents will not support John Edwards or Clinton but have shown the willingness to look at Obama. I had wished he had peformed better the other night. If there is one guy people better not under estimate its Newt whenever or if ever he gets involved. Look at his book sales, his speeches and seminars draw more than most folks in the race right now and his current project has just as many Democrat leaders involved as it does Republicans. He may be laying the foundation for truly a new wing of Republicanism or new party altogther. He is one of the few I find unable to change the channel when he is speaking, though there may be disagreement he still gets listen to while people like Rudy simply just get turned off.