The Clinton machine has produced several Hillary personas to fit the pools, the political script and her "risk" calculator. Winning was the ultimate goal of the self appointed inevitable candidate. It was hard to differentiate real Hillary and the more funny and natural SNL Hillary. I am afraid that the real Hillary acting skills may not help her for a good performance in this unexpected and unprecedented scenario.

Clintonites........

Hillary

Gov. Clinton

Understood. But I think the Democratic candidates this time around are far stonger and they are all hip to "swift-boat" attacks and are staffed and prepared to respond immediately with strength.

I don't want Hillary to be the nominee; I think her negatives are too high and I am very fearful of that being an insurmountable obstacle to her winning a general election especially against a McCain who will garner some independent and moderate Democrat support if he runs against Hillary. But I am no prognosticator and I don't know what Super Tuesday will bring.

I'm not attacking her or any Democrat at this point.

I hear you, John. But it sounds very familiar. Anyone but a Republican. That is the sentiment that led to John Kerry's lackluster campaign in 2004. Anyone but Bush. We all know how that ended.

Almost everyone in this country is too far to the right for my liking. Semantics and labels aside, I think there is one goal though at this point and that is to be politically pragmatic and get a Democrat in the White House and Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. Then we can all hold them to account.

Now is not the time to attack Democrats; to what end? Some feel good moral smugness about doing the right thing? Well meaning and admirable, sure. Advisable? Like voting for Ralph Nader? I'm not there. When there are two Supreme Court vacancies probable in the next eight years; I'll take Hillary making those choices anyday over a Republican. The stakes are just too high right now.

So I guess then it comes to a definition of progressive. To me Hillary is not progressive enough. If she were to get the nomination, I would expect Obama and Edwards supporters not to attack her - but to challenge her to take a more progressive stance. If Hillary were representative of the change and not the status quo as Edwards so eloquently pointed out last night at the debate (youtube.com I suspect she'd be further ahead in the polls because of her experience and the amount of money she has behind her. Because she is not further ahead speaks volumes. We do need a Democrat in the White House - I completely agree, but this can't be an "any Democrat will do" election. Whoever receives the nomination will need to hear the voices of the people from their party who did not originally back them and try to create a united front -- not the other way around.

For the people, not for the Presidential candidate.

She's a moderate, not a progressive.

I appreciate that. This has zero to do with gender or race and I like Obama and Edwards more than I do Hillary. BUT, I personally think that there is NOTHING more important than a Democrat being elected President as opposed to any of the Republicans in the race. ANY DEMOCRAT. They will ALL be progressive on the war, foreign policy, race, immigration, woman's issues, labor, taxes, corporate malfeasance, energy policy, global warming, gay rights, etc. And let's not forget the import of two possible Supreme Court appointments.

I do not think that liberals and progressives attacking any Democrat at this point in time serves to increase the chance of a Democrat winning the White House. What for instance would happen should Hillary win the nomination which is still very much a possibility? What do the attacks on Hillary by Democrats and liberals do to help her or do they just provide more ammunition and sound bites for the Republican attack machine.

The staus-quo is the George Bush policy that is embraced and would be continued by Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Thompson and Huckabee. Not Hillary Clinton. She is a progressive.

This isn't an attack on Hillary. It's very careful sarcastic, mildly humorous -- and not to attack. This is look at how she and her camp have handled her campaign since losing what she thought would clearly be a win for her. If she's going to be the Democratic nominee, I think we have a right to see her handle herself better than this rather than turn a blind eye to a temper tantrum. I'm not going to support a candidate simply because she's a woman and we might not see another female candidate for a long time, just like I'm not going to support an African American candidate because of his race. We cannot be afraid of calling people out on their issues simple because we're afraid they may be our only choice. We have to demand that they be better choices as we push them forward to victory. Or should we simple continue to stay silent, allow this type of behavior to continue and settle for the status quo?

Brad I think you make a valid point. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I don't care for Democrats attacking Hillary, or any other Democrat for that matter. Hillary Clinton is a progressive liberal who would who make a far better President than any Republican candidate.

I do think her negatives make her a great risk for Democrats in the general election though and I don't think Democrats want to take that risk. That pragmatism I understand and Obama is a great candidate.

But the attacks on Hillary by liberals are way out of line. Yes her war vote sucked way back when, so did many other Democrats. No one is perfect.

It's unbelievable how willing the liberal blogosphere is willing to tear into Hillary Clinton. I (as a Canadian) have no official horse in your race, but I was really looking forward to our neighbours electing a smart, articulate woman to the highest office in the land. Instead, the (justified) Bush-hatred is spilling over toward a woman who really, really has dedicated her life to making her country a better place.

I like Obama, I like Edwards, I like Kucinich, etc. but you rarely see the outright venom that is directed toward Mrs. Clinton.

I'm 43 years old and I would wager money that if Mrs. Clinton isn't the nominee this year, it will be decades before another woman is elevated to the nomination of her party (either side).

And don't forget Chelsea!