Interesting choice of words, Mr. Sullivan. She aims to RULE as a dictator, not LEAD as a president. And she's NOT a "distinguished" senator, by the way. pffft!
The baleful effects of the post-Vietnam war era have made themselves felt on Hillary Clinton. Yes, she does want to rule. She feels she is entitled to rule as queen. And Sullivan is dead on: she wishes to humiliate and drive into the ground the half of the country that she despises.
There are none so deadly as women in power. Women tend to want to destroy their opponents. For example, Maggie Thatcher refused to consider American proposals for a negotiated settlement to the Falklands campaign until the Task Force had secured the Islands. What was important was not simply to beat one's opponent, but to drive him utterly down. While men are supposed to live by codes of honor, (well okay, most men anyway) betrayal comes rather easily to women. Rule by Hillary would be a continuous act of revenge against her opponents. Her self-righteousness and her hatred of her opponents would, of course, be her undoing.
Her administration would have a bad end.
But I do not think it will come to pass. I think she will win the Democratic nomination in 2008 (although I should add that a bitter dogfight with Al Gore is possible), but she will not be elected President. Either Jeb Bush, or more likely, Condi Rice, will be there to finally take her down.
Be Seeing You,
Chris