Thank you for posting this, with the intention of sparking a meaningful discussion. It's always a giggle to see the "old reliable" crew being so excited to express how {yawn} bored to read this type of thing. The careful study of, and rehearsed responses to such articles and discussions is clearly their passion.
In 2007, democrats were told that Senator Clinton was inevitable .....that she was destined to be the Democratic Party's nominee, and no force on earth or in Washington could possibly stop her march to the White House. And, truth be told, she proved to be a tough, extremely capable contender. I found her much more compelling, and far, far more attractive a candidate, than those around her, working for her campaign.
I voted for her for the Senate. And I could have supported her for president in 2008, although I came to prefer Senator Obama. I remember how some here on DU reacted in February of '08, when I posted an OP in support of Obama -- yikes! You'd have thought I committed grave sins against humanity. (A few DUers, led by one who spread a rumor that I was actually Patrick Buchanan, attempted to have me "tomb-stoned." For gracious' sake. I am many things, but not Pat Buchanan!)
At this point in time, I believe that Clinton offers many good things -- she'd be strong on reforming health care, for example. But she is weak on environmental issues, being too supportive of energy corporations. And her foreign policy belief system is neoconservative, which is the very last thing our nation needs.
I can see her playing an important role in the next administration, specifically on health care. But I hope that she does not become the nominee.