I have no idea, however, how you go from "her ability to articulate so clearly at a minutes notice" to the conclusion that this is an indicator of her being the "most honest speaker".

One instance stood out to me in this regard. It was the one where she was interviewed by Stephanopoulos and she stood up, and then Stephanopoulos stood up and they conducted the rest of the interview that way (in front of an audience). This was around the time of the gas tax holiday.

Right before they stood up, a woman from the audience said that even though she was living on a tight budget and relied on her car etc., she still thought that the gas tax holiday was a disingenuous proposal. Perhaps some of you remember this moment. She asked how Clinton could defend the proposal when she couldn't point to a single economist who thought there was any merit to her proposal. It was a populist appeal to voters right before one of the primaries, and it wouldn't have the economic effect she claimed it would. Clinton was not able to defend it - but that didn't stop her from "articulating clearly at a moment's notice".

Just found the transcript of that section:

VOTER QUESTION: "I have -- Sen. Clinton, I actually make less than $25,000 a year, so talking about gas prices is not academic for me. I really do feel pain at the pump.

However, I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax. I don't think that it's really a reasonable plan, and call me crazy, but I actually listen to economists, because I think that they know what they studied.

You say that you have both a short- and a long-term plan for our energy consumption. However, since the suspension of the gas tax would encourage continued overconsumption, which could possibly cancel out any price savings and also undermine our efforts to curb global warming, and your long-term plan includes trying to, say, curb global warming, don't you feel that these two plans are in conflict?"

CLINTON: "No. And let me stand up, because I can see you better from this angle.

You know, actually, I'm glad you asked this question, because I want to make it very clear that we're talking about short-term relief and a long-term plan. And I have a very comprehensive, long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase the mileage of our automobiles, and to do it in a way that will push us forward as a leader in the world again, which we have not been, on the issue of global warming. And I invite everyone to go to my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, and read about it.

But if you are driving on average in America this summer, you'll save -- according to Department of Energy figures -- about $70. If you are a long-distance commuter, and a lot of people in Indiana and North Carolina are, if you are a truck driver who depends upon your truck for your living, you're going to save a lot more. In fact, truckers will save about $2 billion in fuel costs.

You see, I really believe we've got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I'm on record as taking on the oil companies. And I think having a good debate, like we're having right now in this campaign, helps to lay the groundwork for what we're going to need to do."

She completely evades the question posed to her. Here's another part right before it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They're not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.

Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?

CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we're going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system, because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority -- I think something like 90 percent -- of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10 percent of wage earners in America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?

CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.

(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4783456&page=1)

No doubt she is articulating clearly, but what she is articulating clearly are not honest answers to the questions posed to her.

They're two different qualities (being articulate and being honest), though by no means mutually exclusive. I really don't think you can deduce one from the other.

I strongly agree with you that Obama must find ways to show respect 18 million voters.

I started fake-snoring after 30 seconds.

However, I agree about the honey vs. vinegar. Plus, he is now merging his own campaign with Obama's, at least in a bumper-sticker way. I heard he said "change" about 30 times.

I think he's going to go for "I'm a kinder, gentler, war-hero-ish, white version of Obama."

Or do you not think a person of mixed race, with the name Barack Hussein Obama, is exotic to most Americans?