"== With regards to ""Very Long"" tag==
However, there might be a lot to say about Senator Clinton!  The wikipedia Yom Kippur War article is long yet it was a very short event of days, compared to Clinton's nearly 60 years of life.  Vote:  Do not shorten for the sake of shortening. 

I think the ""Very Long"" tag may date back to before when material was split off into subarticles.  The article is still kind of long even after that, but manageable I think.  However imagine what will happen if she gets elected President!  All that has come before will be dwarfed by the new material to come. 

Regarding the ""CV section"" that you ( 

I was orginally very confused about her background because it takes work to figure out when she was practicing law and if it overlapped with being First Lady.  A short list of jobs is useful.  What's there to hide.  She was never in prison.  She worked for a prestigous law firm. 

Her practicing law did overlap with being First Lady of Arkansas, but not with being First Lady of the United States.    

The tag is meant for the article page, not the talk page. The article is currently around 67kb, which is long. Talk/Contribs 

Really being wikipedia NPOV: we need to treat people fairly, not have a double standard
The opening paragraph has been very slightly modified to match that of Christopher Dodd, another Democratic presidential contender.  We should treat them fairly and the same.  We still give Senator Clinton the honor of mentioning that she's first lady and has several first.

I don't see how you can be against it unless you aren't fair.  If this isn't the case and you want to change it, explain why inconsistency is fair? 

Why are you picking only Dodd?  Look at Barack Obama, John Edwards, John Kerry ... I've looked at `1/3 to 1/2 of all the Senator articles, and all the 2008 presidential candidate articles, and there is absolutely no consistency among them in their intros.  But let me ask you this, what is your objection to the current intro?    

Dodd is from CT, that borders NY.  First, we make consistency between Dodd and Clinton, then we'll worry about the others?  I can't see how you can be for inconsistency.  It just isn't fair!  And fairness and NPOV is what wikipedia is all about.  What's so bad with Dodd's intro?  It isn't negative or inaccurate. 

Inconsistency of arrangement of neutral and unquestioned biographical details in an intro is not a matter of fairness or NPOV - it's just plain old inconsistency - so your argument is a red herring.  Your chance of getting all these articles to have consistent intros is zero, take my word for it.  Your revised intro to this article wasn't as good as the existing one, because it was a bit redundant and had faulty wikilinking.  Again, what is your agenda here?  What do you think is wrong with what we have?      

For one thing, Dodd is called a politician, which he is.  Hillary's occupation as politician is missing.  Someone is really a politician when they run for more than one office.  Jesse Ventura is difficult to call a politician cuz he just ran for one office then went back into wrestling or related jobs. 

You are wrong about Ventura.  He was a mayor before he was governor and he was also involved in the shaping of third-party political organizations.  So he is a politician just as much as HRC or anyone else.  For the most part, however, I think it is redundant to say someone is a politician when you say they are a senator and running for president - obviously they are politicians.  I just sampled a bunch of articles, and maybe 1/3 use 'politician' in the intro.  Being Wikipedia, it's ve