Please , please, is like Cavuto from Fox interviewing Bush.

Profoundly boring.

thirded. boring.

Well...... I thought she did OK. Kind of wooden, and Dave's format is kind of wooden too, which didn't help matters. I'd feel fine with her as president, but she really is the Democrat's version of Mitt Romney.

Yaaawwwwn! The safe platitudes of a front runner.

As I watched these clips, I kept repeating the same question to myself again and again:

Why do I dislike Mrs. Clinton so much?

She supported the War in Iraq, and voted in favor of the Patriot Act. But in all fairness, I disliked her long before she joined the Senate.

The truly odd thing is: I am a fan of Mr. Clinton. In fact, the longer he stays out of politics, the more I miss him.

Am I the only one around here who absolutely dislikes this person?

Yeah, Agreed. Wooden and preplanned. However, as wooden as it was, it was nice to hear one of the presidential contenders talking about taking care of the troops wounds, acknowledging that soldiers are people, and not a military asset that can be tossed around like an old humvee.

20 minute interview with about 3 minutes of content (if that).

how sad to see an interview degrade in reading of a script.

Oh, and here is a long article about how ABC has been cutting Kucinich out of their media and their polls:

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/special-report.html

Pretty remarkable

Hmm. I don't know. I had a completely different reaction to this. I watched it on TV last night and I thought Hillary came off as comfortable, composed, intelligent, funny and... presidential. Compared to Obama on the Daily Show, and granted he didn't have as much time, Hillary seems like she's on top of her game. Totally in control. Very unlikely to blow it on some silly gaffe.

Kucinich/Gravel in 2008! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I think Noah is right on. I enjoyed watching Hillary. I can't imagine how you would improve the appearance given her circumstances.

Kucinich/Gravel in 2008!

I also had a positive reaction to this. She seemed very presidential. I hope she can keep it up.

I was surprised to see that Hillary Clinton didn't seem awkward at all in this interview. If Clinton ends up winning the primaries, I will support her 100%, and I hope all democrats will too. The republicans have won the last two elections because they had a much stronger base of supporters than democrats because democrats can think for themselves, and we will never be satisfied with our candidate. But in this election, we really need to back our candidate, whether it comes down to Obama or Hillary Clinton. And both are very good candidates besides.

EDWARDS/KUCINICH

I think she did great, but then unlike most people I've always been fond of her.

Yes, Letterman loves Hillary, but he actually knows how to talk to politicians unlike Leno. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but she looked fine to me. Maybe she'll win and be a good president.

Maybe there is something wrong with our system. We don't produce new talent very well. If someone does show smarts and political talent, most of them get ground down and driven out rather than polished up and primed for better things. The first woman president had to be first lady first? That's pathetic. Pakistan had a female prime minister--Pakistan!, where they still have honor killings of "defiled" virgins. In the U.S. if it weren't for Hillary we'd be another 8 years at the very least until the first female president--there's no second string. The other two Dem front runners are political novices, and the three Republicans are really a joke. We really stink right now at producing good candidates.

You know, I think she used to have her heart in the right place, back when she got out of college and so on, but since she's become a senator I just don't trust her. It seems she we say or sign or do just about anything if she sees it as furthuring her chance for the white house. She won't even say she regrets voting for the war in Iraq... we've had six years of a guy f-ing up things and never apologizing. Hillary reminds me way, way too much of Bush.

Like mentioned above, she supported war in Iraq, supports "Patriot" Act, supports ammendment to ban flag burning (do we really need to amend the constitution to ban flag burning? Is this really a danger to citizens?)

I voted for Mr. Clinton both times and I'd vote for him for a third time if I could, but I'm hoping Hillary won't get the nomination. Either way, I'll be voting for Edwards--someone that I believe says what he really thinks.

Uh, are all you guys friends? I thought Hillary did a pretty good job on the television in the context of Letterman. It wasn't a debate or an e-town hall meeting. I don't even like her or will vote for her but she did quite well with the other 98% of dumb chubby americans. Woof.

Hillary did just fine, but it WAS a bit dull - in other words, she was "presidential". If she is nominated, I will vote for her, but I would much rather see Edwards nominated.

Frankly, I think Hillary is the Democrat from among those deemed "electable" by the conventional wisdom who the GOP wants to run against. She is the one who energizes their base, and unlike Bill, she isn't a 'natural' politician. Edwards will be more likable in general election and I prefer his stance on the issues.

There is one important set of issues I'd like to hear all the Dems saying more about: rolling back the abuses of power committed and being institutionalized by BushCo. I've only really heard Chris Dodd speak out forcefully for repeal of the Military Commissions Act and way too many of them are either supportive of or apathetic about the Patriot Act.

Here's my shallow comment for the day:

She laughs like the bully from A Christmas Story.

Oh goodness sake, I mean this is just anti-anti-repbulican thought and prose...neato!

Aw, come on, she did okay. She's always better in formats like this than in, say, speeches. But she is no natural, certainly not compared to Bill. But Gore was no natural, too. And look how sorely he was missed, these last years.

At the moment, I'm quite torn between the big three. There's all kinds of reasons not to like either Hillary, Obama or Edwards. But I like all three of them. They're smart, they're into it, they're quite substantial. Far from perfect, I know. But think about it for a second: Wouldn't it be cool, if this was really Ms. President sitting there..?

Since Edwards will probably not make it to the nomination (unfortunately) Hillary Clinton is totally fine with me. These "I can't stand her, I don't know why" comments get on my nerves. It's the same thing they said about Gore. And about Bush they said, "he's such a nice chap, I wanna have a beer with him.."

And look what that got us.

During World War I: "shellshock"

World War II: "battle fatigue."

Korea: "operational exhaustion"

Vietnam: "traumatic stress disorder"

Iraq (and this is the first time i've heard this one): Traumatic Brain Injury

I will HOLD MY NOSE and vote for Hillary, Obama, et. al. when they are nominated, but only because they SEEM to be MARGINALLY better than the crypto-fascist crowd. But I refuse to spend much time actually watching their TV appearances.

They are NOT the opposition.

How do you pull troops out of Iraq and simultaneously continue to put pressure on their Gov't to get their shit together; root out al qaeda and rescue all the people you want to rescue? Yes, I'm all for it but I wish Hillary or anyone for that matter would explain just HOW you do that.

to fritzheadsaid: how come we need to stand around and babysit their Gov't and tell them to get their shit together? Bush fucked up Iraq using America's resources, but America isn't responsible for Iraq.

It's the same problem that we had with our parents when we were kids. We would only get stuff done when we WANTED to, not just because our parents nagged us. Here's what I think is going through the Iraqi politicians heads: "As long as our government is broke, we will get continuous support from the U.S. but if we choose to fix it, we will no longer have a military, a devoted military that is, to maintain stability in our country." . . . . What do you think they're going to do?

"What do you think they're going to do?"

I get your point but I think the suggested conclusion applies to much saner, less volatile, situation. I don't expect that there will be a government in Iraq, however loosely defined, when we leave.

I'm asking a question not to promote an agenda but to ask a question. How does Hillary's plan to withdraw while remaining PROACTIVE ("putting pressure on the region, etc"). I'd love to hear the logistics of this goal but it's never forthcoming.

I have wondered the same thing, and I understand it wasn't necessarily your agenda . I was just raising that point because you reminded me of it.

But yes, point taken, Hillary, as well as the other candidates have never explained how they will do it, but I think it is the media and the public to blame. The average American has an attention span of 30 seconds for a TV commercial, and I think speeches are framed around this. If you remember John Kerry, he actually provided his plans and a logical path for getting out of Iraq . . . that is if you didn't fall asleep listening to him.