Hillary Clinton appears on the cover of Time magazine this week, 17 months before residents of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire cast ballots in the first presidential primary. That's advertising Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and other Democratic hopefuls can only dream of enjoying.

Hillary Clinton's visage has graced the cover of Time magazine 11 times since she entered the national stage in 1992 when she explained that she was not one of those Tammy-Wynette, stand-by-your-man wives. She turned out to be just that. Perhaps that makes her a hypocrite, but one whose actions rise above her words.

Time has given Hillary a 50th-birthday card, rebuked the press on her behalf for its interest in her husband's extramarital dalliances, and provided free front-cover advertising for her bestselling autobiography. Hillary is a controversial figure, but up until this latest cover, which features voting boxes next to the words "Love Her" and "Hate Her," its readers would hardly know this--at least if they read only Time they would hardly know this.

Ron Robinson, president of Young America's Foundation, has for years given an excellent presentation that utilizes the covers of Time and Newsweek to show media bias in action. If you're Pat Buchanan, you become a Hell Raiser employing "scapegoat politics" on Time's cover and a "Bully Boy" on Newsweek's. If you're Newt Gingrich, you get the grim five-o'clock-shadow shot appearing on the cover. If you're Rush Limbaugh, you get caricatured angrily screaming fire into a microphone. If you are Hillary Clinton, you need not worry about such treatment.

I have never been able to figure out why the Rs hate Hillary so much.

It's not that we hate her so much; it's more that we just hate her back. She's not a benign little fawn. She's a ruthless, calculating, mean spirited socialist. This concerns those of us who take being an American seriously.

And she doesn't? How do you know that?

Because she believes more in a “World Government” under the auspices of the United Nations which will eventually destroy American sovereignty. I think this could be plainly interpreted as un-American. She also endorses the World Federalist Association. Their charter includes that American sovereignty will be gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue. The reality is that she does not hold the best interests of this country in fold. Hillary is scary.

Guido,

That's like saying that I can't understand why dems hated Newt so much!
Hillary's problems began when she used her position as first lady to push an un-elected agenda (national health care) onto the American people.

When all is said and done, she would make one hell of a president when compared to that two bit SOB loser that disgraces the mansion at the present time. Right now, America has the worst president in it's history.

When all is said and done, she would make one hell of a president when compared to that two bit SOB loser that disgraces the mansion at the present time. Right now, America has the worst president in it's history.

Ahh, Just what I thought. No negatives about the loser cowboy who has killed 2600 young Americans for a lark

You only gave us one minute (literally) John and then you answered your own question by not waiting for a response. This is liberal thinking at its finest.

First off, it's doubtful that Hillary would make a good President. Some of the reasons are listed above. But, don't be so quick to think that just because there is an 'R' on someone's voter registration that they're happy with 'W'. I for one am not very happy with him or his policies. I’m especially not happy with his lack of gonads (or pandering to business, take your pick) regarding illegal immigration.

Instead of whining about ‘W’ though, you Dems should start looking for viable candidates to give us all a better choice. But as long as you keep nominating low caliber liberal weenies and closet commies, the GOP will continue to be the way to go.

John,

What exactly do Pres. Bush and Hillary Rodham disagree on?

. . .

Maybe tax policy and SC appointments. I can't think of anything else, and frankly despite the importance of both areas they hardly constitute the bulk of activities of the modern imperial presidency.

More importantly, of the one issue you mention that rightfully (imo) has your blood boiling, his War on Iraq, Hillary is even more of a hawk than he is . . . or have you not been paying any attention? ASDF is basically right, work on getting your party to provide an actual alternative choice. But you won't and they won't and we will continue to suffer under this plutocracy that sells itself as a two-party system just in time for each November.

Hillary, like John Kerry, doesn't think it's necessary to answer tough questions-or even allow herself to be asked tough questions. That's why you'll never see her interviewed on Fox News. The first time the American People see just how much she has to hide(her husbands charm won't help her in a one on one debate of the issues),I think her
campaign will fail a la John Kerry.Of course she'll carry the blue states but as we've seen, you need some red in your political spectrum to secure a victory in a country where liberals are still outnumbered by conservatives.
It will be highly entertaining to see Hillary
trying to distance herself from her well deserved
designation as a "liberal". "Family Values" and
"abortion on demand" won't play in Red State Land.

By the way, is Time Magazine unaware that Hillary was born in 1947 ?;or is this cover from 1997?
Someone please enlighten me!

Confused In California

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong cover.
Nevermind

A Little Less Confused in California

I think Hillary could win. I don't want her to but if things align properly I think she could.

For example, the Republicans seem determined to have a very liberal candidate oppose her, someone like a Giuliani who is pro-choice. They seem to want to make the election be a clear continuation of Bush's War on Terror and I think that issue will really backfire for them, not b/c Dems can beat them on national security but b/c it simply won't get out the vote for the GOP but will get out the vote for the left. Does anyone other than Ann Coulter seriously think our national security can get any worse than it is now w/ a change of parties taking over the WH?

To get out the vote in battleground states that will be in play the Republicans have to change course on some issues that they seem completely unwilling to compromise on, particularly immigration. They will be unlikely to have gay marriage as a reason to get people out to vote in swing states and if they go through w/ nominating a pro-abort, then Hillary will win.

I agree Fudgie D Whale, and asdf, Hillary is a monster! I mean just imagine if all of the homeless people on the streets had free health care! Think about how many votes that would get the dems. Our country would be overfilled with vibrant potential voters that wanted all a fair shake...our current system would be in ruins. And, who would pay for all of these bums getting free health care? All of us powerful rich folk.

There will always be homeless (ie. - bums) and NOTHING is free.