Just wanted to apologize for not answering more reader mail in this space lately, and for not being prompt when I do. It's been a crazy few weeks, as those of you reading my Times blog (("The Primary Argument") can probably see. But please keep your e-mails coming and I'll get up to speed. Thanks.

I thought your piece yesterday was the best explanation of why, I, and so many of my friends, are so torn about Hillary and the state fo the Democratic Party--it's failure to be bold when times (like these) call for it. But I am also a pragmatist and have learned to live with the Clinton middle as often the best we can do--now, at least I have perspective on my own conflict--for which I thank you.

Your piece in the NYTimes this Sunday was incredibly well-stated. Throughout the entire article I definitely felt your bias towards Bill Clinton, which I thought was somewhat carrying over to Hillary as well. But just when I thought you were about to cap it off with a "Vote for Hillary" slogan, in came your final paragraph, "The Defining Difference".

My response is, "Absolutely!"

I enjoyed your article. Very few people recognize that Clinton reshaped the political landscape of this country and reintroduced government as a friend to the American people. I agree that the post Lewinsky period was a period of squandered opportunity, but speaking as an unabashed liberal, on balance the good far outweighed the bad. In some respects even the Bush slogan of "compassionate conservatism" was a response to the third way.

I do disagree with your characterization of "Don't ask don't tell". People forget that in the face of Powell's spectacular and public insubordination, and Sam Nunn's intransigence, there was no way that the original proposal to allow gays to serve, would have passed Congress. Don't ask don't tell at least theoretically allowed gays to serve. It should also be remembered that at the time even it was severely criticized by Republicans. Interestingly in one of the Republicans debates this year, most embraced the policy. Another example of Clintonian transformation.

Even the apparent incrementalism led to some very significant changes sometimes under the radar. For example SCHIP, or removing the draconian aspects of the original welfare reform legislation. People also forget that at a time of immense opposition Clinton saved affirmative action, "mend it but don't end it", by acknowledging its flaws, while reaffirming its fundamental premise.

I just finished reading your NYT magazine article on the Clinton referendum (it's 35 pages on a BlackBerry; very painful way to read it but worthwhile nonetheless!). Thanks for putting words to the vague ambivalence I've been feeling. It will help me sort out who I'm supporting in the primary! Appreciate your perspective!

I'm an artist in my late twenties, living in Brooklyn. I've been endeavoring to become more informed in order to cast an educated vote this November. I wanted to say thank you for your NY times blog, and particularly your writing style. So much political writing numbs my brain, so it's nice to find a source that is informative while still pleasurable
to read. I really do appreciate it.

While you mentioned many important contributions of the Clinton administration, your analysis of his presidency failed to emphasize the deliberate and relentless strategy of the Republicans - to sabotage his name and presidency every day, all day. Clinton did not fail, the Republicans succeeded by way of obstruction and then impeachment. Clinton kept trying to fill the swimming pool. And the Republicans made sure to pollute the water on a daily basis, then watched and made sure to blame Clinton for not keeping the water clean. All that and a press corps that was willing to be manipulated with whatever the Republicans wanted to broadcast. Imagine for a moment what could have been achieved with Clinton in office and a Democratic Congress.

Your Sunday Times piece is very good. I have noticed the same thing you have written over the past few years. As I go back and forth on one of the on line blogs I find that most political junkies do not have the understanding of the fact that pure liberalism without the practicality of getting elected by a majority of the ENTIRE electorate demands a move to the center ala' Clintonism. Hillary's mistake was that she started there from the beginning. Obama, her closest rival has always focused on winning the nomination by working the liberal base in the party. By your definition Obama can never win the presidency with just a liberal and black base. William Jefferson knows this. I'm sure that that fact, along with his knowledge of what the GOP will throw at the democrat running for president drives him to work harder for his wife. A vote for Hillary, is a vote for Bill, and his legacy for the democratic party.

typical crap comming from the new york slimes! question: do the Clintons have you on their payroll? so much for objective journalism.

As a supporter of Sen. Obama's run for the Presidency, I just wanted to express appreciation for your enlightening, balanced article on Clinton's political philosophy its effect on America. I think you accurate crystallize the conflict of feelings for many moderate liberals, mine included, in respect to the accomplishments and failures of President Clinton. I respect him for lowering the deficit and improving the economy, but turning American's social fabric and political arena into a smoldering wasteland leaves me spiritually depressed. Perhaps my belief that there were more civil times in America's politics is incorrect.

Regardless, your article should gives me much to think about and I wish there were pieces of this caliber in today's media. Thank you.