A reader writes:

Your Republican writer deserves the Sullivan Award for complete conservative nonsense.  We didn't like Goldwater, nor Reagan.  We see them as the obvious antecedents to Bush, and think it's a big joke that you all are so surprised by the last eight years' turn of events.

That said, we are not trying to punish anyone, and we are aware that Mrs. Clinton is profoundly, if irrationally, divisive.  What's worse for many of us is that she is a bit of a centrist, especially on issues of foreign policy.

Most of us really wish there were more there there to Mr. Obama, both ideologically--in that he sounds like the same old centrist same old--except for his rhetoric on Iraq, not really a change and not even a change when it comes to politics--in that he doesn't seem to provide much leadership when it comes to his colleagues; he doesn't appear effective.  He never votes or takes a stand when it counts, and how many initiatives has he taken.

Say what you will about Mrs. Clinton, she does seem effective, and maybe that's what scares the bejesus out of all you right wing ideologues.

The Clintons win elections, work their asses off, and get a lot done, for the most part hire good people, actually get along with coworkers from the other party, even if they're a pair of triangulatin' fools.

If Dodd or Biden had a chance, we'd lean that way.  If it came down to ideology, we'd probably prefer Edwards, an old fashioned Dem, and among the farther left, Kucinich.  We all wish Richardson, especially those of us from the west, appeared a stronger candidate too.  But no matter how much you and the conservatives who say they'd like a Black man by the name of Barack Obama wish to believe otherwise, for most Democrats, it's been his nomination to win or lose, because that's what we would most want too.  However, beyond symbolism, what we want to see is real world leadership, hands on, and so far he's been second best at best to just about everyone else running.

The real key to understanding the difference between Republicans and Democrats is in their reactions to the previous two Presidents.  In fact, Bill Clinton was the best damned Republican policy President of the past half century.  Republicans hated his slippery personality, the way he played fast and loose with the truth, and his personal approach to life.  Democrats hate what George Bush has done to the country.  There's a real difference, and Republicans as well as so-called (conservative) independents, project their feelings about the Clintons on ours about George Bush. To analogize, Michael Moore is not Michelle Malkin, but people like you can't see the difference.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.