More people, by a huge factor, will only see the cover--on the Net or elsewhere--than will read the article. The cover tends to support various smears. As has been painstakingly explained by more than one poster--to anybody not willfully obtuse-- this is the problem.

Images--especially negative ones--are powerful--especially to people who have deep cynicism for what they might read or hear on the so-called mainstream media (that meaningless term).

Consider, for instance, what Dukakis is most known for.



And as for the tired theory that Hillary would have been stronger--that's hogwash to the n'th power. Burdened by the 60's and 90's, facing more scandal--not even mentioning what investigation of Bill's financial dealings might have--and still may--turn up, and without the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters, she would have had no chance against McCain.

It's Bill who will keep her from the VP position--in so many ways, he's the perfect loose cannon.

The nomination was hers to lose. And she lost it--primarily by alienating the anti-war wing of the Democratic party--the wing which has the intelligence and dedication a candidate needs. As well as money.