I was entirely behind the 'draft Hillary' movement in 2003. W's (s)election in 2000 could be seen as a fluke but one with disastrous consequences. We were in a war which had its main public justification vanish ( no WMDs) and the contrast between the 1990's with its budget surplus and wise reaching prosperity were still fresh in people's memories. We needed a seriously badass candidate. Ms. Clinton declined to run, saying she didn't have the 'ground game' in place. I think that was a mistake . When her country needed her she declined, preferring to run later on, one her terms. Perhaps she could not have won; the nation was in war fever but Ms Clinton's vote in favor of war power may have blunted that criticism. We did need a better candidate however. Molly Ivins ( RIP) said John Kerry was someone people thought other people would vote for. The conventional wisdom was his status as a veteran would insulate him from the Republican charge that Democrats were not warlike enough for the Presidency. We all remember how that worked out. If Ms Clinton is the nominee i will vote for her this time. I did think the Republicans had too much time to formulate a strategy against her in 2008, but there was a Democratic wave in that election and she would have made a good president. I thought she would be a great Prime Minister if we had such a thing but she would have been a decent President. I do think she missed her chance though and if she lost she would have been better prepared for her next run. She didn't think it was a good time for her. Running for President is not about what the candidate needs however. It is what the nation needs and in 2004 the nation needed her. I know some ( wife in particular) who are still bitter for her not heeding the call of Democrats who thought she would have been a better candidate than Sen Kerry. Hillary, where were you when we really needed you?