Hillary Clinton does not and will not get my vote because this woman as President will change nothing, and this is the worst mistake this country can make. The next Administration must get us out of Iraq, and at the same time our armies have to be much more likened to the rest of the Western world.

Nearly all other countries on this globe have mandatory military service for their citizens. It's time for America to go back to the draft. Everybody goes, no matter who they are. At age 18, right after high school, no matter what, you serve in the military for an eighteen-month term. No excuses, no 4-F exemptions. The problem with Hillary and the military is that she was never in the service, neither was her husband, so what they will do is listen to the generals. Wrong, when you are the Commander in Chief, you tell the generals what to do. And in this instance, they need to be told, You need more soldiers, we are going to reinstitute the draft. Period.

Jim Crosby

Los Angeles, CA

I agree with Robert Scheer that Hillary Clinton is much too hawkish. He refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq, and her flippant dismissal of voters who are concerned by her stubbornness, mark her as ill-suited for the presidency.

We all make mistakes, and all mistakes have consequences that are directly proportional to the size of the mistake. Mrs. Clinton's error has helped cost human lives. Her unapologetic attitude and refusal to admit to having been wrong indicate someone who, like George W. Bush, is incapable of recognizing inherently human fallibility. If Clinton cannot even bring herself to admit she made a colossal blunder with her vote for war, how can she be trusted to form a plan to get us out of Iraq?

This is a legitimate campaign issue, and one that could seriously jeopardize Mrs. Clinton's candidacy as voter anger at the war in Iraq grows. Her supprters attacked Mr. Scheer's column at TruthDig for perceived gender bias, but such criticism is a poor shield to hide behind. The same questions plaguing Mrs. Clinton over her stubborn refusal to cop to her past errors would be asked of any male candidate. And if Hillary would rather, as John Nichols pointed out in an online column, be wrong than president--if she would have us vote for someone else in the field of Democratic candidates--then voters are liable to oblige her.

Michael Kwiatkowski

Cleveland, OH

Labels don't tell you everything that is inside. Having said that, however, I agree with Mr. Scheer.

t certainly sounds like the kind of political rhetoric aimed at appeasement (hmm?) of certain voting groups. Of course, the same argument can be made for those who also now say they were wrong then.

The larger issue, though, as Mr. Scheer indicates, is where was Ms. Clinton in her role as senator when the debate was going on? Didn't she see the news media's questions? Didn't she see her constituents marching against the war? Didn't she read the UN inspectors' reports? Didn't she hear Joe Wilson? Didn't she ask any questions?

It is one thing to be tough. It's quite another thing to know which battles to fight. It's also another thing to unilaterally and without provocation invade another country, especially one that had been ravaged since the first US war with Iraq and with the continuing economic sanctions. War is not a popularity contest.

David Murray

Cedarville, Michigan

The good news about Senator Clinton is that her position has improved. Mr. Scheer is right that she's not a peace candidate; but give her time.

Her position was identical to that of Sen Lieberman at this time, last year. Now she promises that she'll end the war and has voted to debate the anti-surge resolution.

As those opposed to the war gain in numbers, Sen. Clinton's affection for the war has decreased. By this time next year, she may actually be against the war.

Daniel Millstone

New York, NY