She is not a leader. SHe just does whatever is politically convenient.

I too would rather vote for Ron Paul or Gore or Clark than this woman. Unfortunately, none of them are realistic choices at this point for different reasons.

The same feudal tendency also exists in socially conservative christians.

The same biographies which Shankar glowingly quotes also mention that Hillary is exceedingly self-righteous. This might make democrats drool, but it should give sensible people pause — the worst excesses are created by self-righteous “messiahs”. All these years of George Bush and still people don’t learn their lesson.

I am voting for Ron Paul. He will end the war in Iraq and STOP the coming war with Iran. And he will return the US to the treasure that made it great, namely our Constitution.

Bloomberg’08 – when was the last time we had a politician who had no need to pander to special interest or beholden to campaign donors

Not in all cases… I doubt her support for Bill would extend to the point where it would really hurt her politically :

Hillary Rodham Clinton, distancing herself from a politically controversial action by her husband, said yesterday that she opposes the release from prison or other forms of clemency for 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group that was involved in more than 100 bombings in this country at least 15 years ago. When President Clinton announced a clemency offer on Aug. 11, it had strong support from human rights leaders and was widely seen as boosting Hillary Clinton’s standing among New York’s Hispanic voters in her expected campaign for the Senate next year. But a backlash quickly developed against the offer from senior law enforcement officials and leading New York politicians. Washington Post, 9/5/1999

I covered Mrs. Clinton sporadically from the day she began her first campaign for the Senate, on Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s farm, through her early years in office. In that period, I saw her in dozens of settings working the state fairgrounds in Syracuse, nodding attentively during her listening tour, chatting with aides in Washington, signing books in Westchester County, taking a call from her husband on her cell phone. I also interviewed her a few times. When the subject was policy, she was always smart and engaged; when the topic was personal, it was like talking to someone through several layers of Plexiglas. Of course, I was trying to get at the “real Hillary”. (In the interest of full disclosure, I never even came close.)

History is full of politicians who have sacrificed other people to their ambitions. A willingness to do so might even be called a precondition of power. Clinton is unusual in that she seems, above all, to have sacrificed herself. Whether you follow her around for months or just read a book about her, you can’t help admiring her extraordinary discipline. When her husband was accused of creating a slush fund to manage his extramarital affairs, she organized a legal team to protect him – that’s the kind of person she is. (Bernstein reports that, in 1990, the team interviewed five women, in one case with Hillary in the room, to obtain statements from them that they had never had sex with Bill.) In January, 2000, I accompanied Clinton on a campaign swing through western New York. The first morning began with what was expected to be a friendly radio interview. Instead, the host asked Clinton whether she had ever slept with Vince Foster. No matter what else she did or said that day, it was clear that this story was going to dominate the news cycle. Her press secretary looked as if he wanted to vomit. But Clinton managed to smile and shake hands through the next ten hours of campaign events, as if the whole incident had never happened.

I think Hillary has done a fine job in helping maintain a focus on the foremost issues. (As a matter of comparison : Mike Huckabee is currently on the job of explaining why he believes in Creationism and not evolution).

Consensus at the table was that Hillary would be a very divisive candidate, at least initially, were she to secure the party nomination. And if she was to become President, the deep rifts that have formed between Republicans and Democrats will only get deeper.

Various people at the table, including some liberals, described Hillary as “a bitch” and as “untrustworthy.” When I pressed them on what specifically made her untrustworthy in their opinion, two people described it as “a gut feeling” or “a feeling you get when you look at her, and her expressions.”

I pointed out that the Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004 ran largely on themes of trust and values, and that for many years a great many people claimed that Bush was “trustworthy,” and would be the sort of leader a person could “trust,” and that the reality of the administration’s policies was not borne out by the impressions given by the campaign. My specific retort was that imagery and wording play strongly on emotions, and that an image can be manipulated, so it’s best not to trust that.

I think my point was lost on several people at the table. It just confirms my belief that understanding policy decisions, a candidate’s voting record (if applicable), and the nuances in their rhetoric are not strong on the American voter’s priority list.

I find it deplorable that a candidate must be painted with such a broad brush, and that politics (like almost everything else in America lately) has become more about entertainment than about understanding.

I do think Hillary would make a fine President. I also think Obama would, too, and he’d also be less divisive (can you believe it!? Well, you can’t say progress isn’t being made in some fashion, right?).

I am mostly unimpressed with the Republican candidates so far. Fred Thomspson has a generally “likeable” persona, and I like his character on “Law and Order.” But that doesn’t mean I think he’s going to make a great President. The jury’s out on him, mainly due to a lack of information. Giuliani is a mess; I don’t think his campaign is going to weather the storm well enough to garner the party nomination. And Mitt Romney…I dunno. I’m impressed with his work on the Salt Lake City Olympic committee, but I don’t really get his pro-life / abortion rights waffling. Similarly, he’s really mealy-mouthed when it comes to same-sex equality issues. I suspect that his personal ideals are frequently at odds with his party platform, and that he will toe the line.

Since then she has apologized : Since then she has made a public apology which has been aired on television several times and an Associated Press story has been carried in several newspapers in the U.S. and India. On what appeared on CNN, she said: “It was a lame attempt at a joke. It was a dumb thing to say and I am sincerely sorry. I have only the highest regard for Mahatma Gandhi, and have been a longtime admirer of his life and work. I consider him one of the great leaders of the 20th century.

Alright, so in regards to Hillary Clinton’s foreign and economic policy goals vis-a-vis India : Mahatma Gandhi, gas station, Gandhi, gas station, Saint Louis, gas station, Mahatma Gandhi. Now, we can move on.