funny ringtones

John Edwards is for real!

Ohio Guy comment to Linda (not sure what she said)--but Ohio Guy, I like your pointed emphasis of where the balance is on the popularity scale regarding the majority view. It is not Bush's territory.

But, I have to note what I suspect you might agree with, very unhappily, that there is one third support for horror...and yes, that is solid Bush agenda support and one third would vote that...they need to be ANALYZED! (on the couch, but perhaps via the media's dissection of the supposed "principle" (I see no proper principle for warmongering and greed and corruption).

I believe that IF the media had presented Nader as the ANTI WAR candidate and ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATE for the MAJORITY of the people at the proven track record of PUBLIC INTEREST LIMELIGHT ACHIEVEMENTS...the "way" this country is right now...the system dominated as it is right now, we would have had 1/3; 1/3; 1/3 both in 2000 and 2004.

And, that one third reality is evidence of something NOT WORKING properly. I believe the popular vote would have been that. That, right now, there are Nader supporters who are one third, not less than 5%. But, that, the actual reality is the level of consciousness needs a lot of work.

Meanwhile, of course, if I am right, and the Democrats v Bush v Nader was actually one third v one third v one third...it is depressing.

Instead of "Can he or she win?" some basic agenda stuff pulled out and above the political system claims of "reality" when they are supposed to be "artifactual" not representing the reality of ONCE IN OFFICE the level of SUPPORT AT A MAJORITY LEVEL OUTCOME predicted? That discussion of CONTENT and AGENDA needs to be measured as a enlightment requirement.

How much do people know about what is the current budget?

How much do they know about the environment REALITY as it is affected by Congress?

How much do they know about ENERGY use and resources and the national resources v dependency?

And, so forth.

Is there a majority consensus on what is MOST WANTED as the HIGHEST PRIORITY that they believe as a nation should be the top three priorities. DO NOT FILL IN THE BLANKS FOR THE PUBLIC and ask them to "agree."

ASK THEM THEIR PRIORITIES. Without any reference to any party or candidate. Just what is most important to proper government and leadership from the President?

Yes, I voted for Nader.

Yes, many "Democrats" wanted to but were terrified of doing it.

And, SOME Bush supporters liked Nader best because they know he is a hard worker, very prestigeous and accomplished and stands tall, as a constant.

Moving forward, the one third for Bush is not a majority. And the one third that exists is not respected by me at all.

Cheers to Ohio Guy.

"The Democrats just hate to admit the President is smart enough to get people to support him as president."

Yeh Linda, he is smart enought to get 32% of the people to support him as President. You're right - democrats are just bitter.

Seems very "free and easy" introduction of Lieberman as an INDEPENDENT candidate offering the suggestion that he is STRONG ENOUGH as a candidate.

I missed that when Ralph Nader ran. That Independent Run as a VALID choice was not mentioned, to my knowledge!

Yet, I certainly agree that IF THE CANDIDATE IS STRONG ENOUGH then an INDPENDENT RUN is a strong and proper, positive affirmative for the country stand to take.

I voted for Ralph Nader but missed the media's proper acknowledgement of the Independent Run as valid and missed the proper accounting of the hypocrisy of the Democrats trying to say a vote for Nader was misplaced and belonged to only the two parties and not to Nader. Just how is it UNDERSTOOD when they offer Lieberman as a good Independent candidate as valid?

Lieberman is not as strong, likely.

Should have let Nader run. Nader ran. And he is still showing the truth of what powers are in force and they are corrupt.

Moving forward, the Democrats have a site for learning about impeachment, something else the media doesn't want to bother with. But here is a new site:

www.articlesofimpeachment.net

and http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

This blog audience should force complete 360 degrees viewing. (Note Lieberman being dismissed by the media as in the article above..."jump ship"? Handy ahead of time, whose doing? Such doings need attention.

Well, the Iowa Republicans have a convention this weekend and I sure hope some news group takes a test of the 2008 candidates. I want to see how many delegates want McCain, or Rudy, or Condi or George Allen.

McCain is a good Senator, but I do not support him for president. So let the 2008 debate go forward.

sorry Patricia, George Bush visited China when his father was the Ambassador and he also visited Mexico.

The Democrats just hate to admit the President is smart enough to get people to support him as president. If the Democrats used their energy to find solutions instead of ripping apart the president, maybe the Dems could figure out how to win a few elections.

Congressman Murtha is already jumping in front of the camera to take the post as House Majority Leader. Who is he kidding? Pelosi might not be my choice for a leader, but at least she is working to get Democrats elected instead of picking a fight with the Democrat leaders like Murtha is doing. He is so power hungry, it is just obvious.

Jason,

" The only thing I would have a question about is his foreign policy knowledge. That could be important in these times, especially in the debates. To me, if he can prove he can handle foreign policy, he might be the ideal candidate for Democrats to win and have govern effectively."

George Bush in 2000 had no foreign policy knowledge. He hadn't even traveled extensively outside of the US. Not that he has been exactly a role model. Edwards is smart and can surround himself with advisors who have the FP knowkedge and can assist him.

I believe John Edwards is the one Democrat who can beat Hillary for the nomination. He is charasmatic, likable and is popular with black voters in the south.

Well I have not lost one ounce of support for John Edwards. I just would not mind seeing Warner or Bayh being nominated because they would make good Presidents too and can win too like Edwards. Edwards is downright the best politician on both sides of the aisle and has a vision of what he wants for A New America. I don't want to see Hillary be nominated, but I would vote for her over any Republican. I think in Iowa Edwards will be considered the Real Deal that will bring about the much needed change for a new America to lead the world once again in this new age of reality. What it comes down to is that the main candidate out of Warner, Edwards, Bayh, Hillary, Kerry, Vilsack, Feingold, and Clark the candidates I feel will have the most look and be the main contenders are Edwards, Warner and Clinton. Let's just pray that the first one I mentioned gets elected and def. pray that the last one does not get nominated!

"He took on social security...."

LOL...I gotta admit reading this blog is sometimes the funniest part of my day. I love how some people claim that Bush trying to destroy Social Security (a program he declared while at Harvard Business School to be "socialism") is akin to trying to truly reform the system and make it fiscally solvent.

Hey, let's hear it for John Edwards. I think he's electable--which Hillary certainly is not.

Drindl: I would like to apologize for not getting that correct. No excuse...I should have read more carefully.

FH, if you were paying attention, you would have noted that I was quoting bhoomes, who was saying Murtha's service didn't count.

"Drindl: Doesn't matter how long you spent in the military, bhoomes. The question is, did you spill blood? Otherwise your service doesn't count.

That's about the dumbest, most ignorant post I've ever seen on this blog."

So does that make your post the 'dumbest, most ignorant' then?

Re: "the dems are eating their own and we conservatives can sit back and enjoy the show. Pass the popcorn please."

bhoomes should remember that popcorn can give you serious GAS and an upset stomach. The Dems actually cherish debate, diversity, divergence from the top brass's messages, etc. Get in step, lemming Rubblecans, your doom is just over that cliff up ahead.

Bad news for Hillary and the center-of-the-road chickens can only be GOOD news for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I can't say whether Edwards is the right candidate -- I know I would at least consider him, which is more than I can say for a lot of Democrats at this point.

But with Cheney cleaning his clock at the VP debate, you have to wonder if he can you over that goal line.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 12, 2006 01:34 PM

*****

Edwards was declared the winner of that debate by those polled after it. By quite a spread, too.

Pathological lying is a disease. You should seek professional help.

Edwards will ruin the GOP if he wins the nomination. Absolutely ruin it.

BTW, are you one of those Operation Yellow Elephant Rethuglicans? You know, the ones whose yellow spines preclude them from serving in the military as they bash veterans? I'm guessing you are.

"Kudos to Drindl for no personal attacks(he won the bet for now)but just because Murtha served in military doesn't really mean anything(ie: never spilled any blood, purple heart winner John Kerry)

Posted by: bhoomes | June 12, 2006 09:22 AM"

*****

We have men and women being blown apart in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you rip a multiple Purple Heart awardee for not bleeding enough? I suppose you adore McCain's Vietnam service, even though he was shot down while Kerry was out killing the enemy and getting wounded doing it.

I know you GOPians lack basic human decency, but your rank hypocrisy and lack of intellect and reason is equally appalling.

I think those that try to pass themselves off as intellectuals, that use terms like "far left," are pathetic losers, unable to put forth a cogent thought stream to effectively represent themselves and so resort to labeling...as a way of pandering to stupidity...

got it?

This is one example of what I am talking about...

In my opinion, those who use such labels as "far left" are posturing. Those who resort to pandering to the lowest common denomenator instead of forwarding cogent arguements demean the dialogue.

Why does it have to be so personal and insulting? It is not so hard to present an opinion and leave the vitriol behind.

I think those that try to pass themselves off as intellectuals, that use terms like "far left," are pathetic losers, unable to put forth a cogent thought stream to effectively represent themselves and so resort to labeling...as a way of pandering to stupidity...

got it?

This is one example of what I am talking about...

In my opinion, those who use such labels as "far left" are posturing. Those who resort to pandering to the lowest common denomenator instead of forwarding cogent arguements demean the dialogue.

Why does it have to be so personal and insulting? It is not so hard to present an opinion and leave the vitriol behind.

KoZ

I have to give Bush some credit on immigration. With his family background, it only seems natural but still, it is the reasonable approach to take IMO.

With regards to social security- he has done nothing! Tax cuts? Only putting USA in a deeper hole to help whom???

Neither refreshing nor ground breaking. His fiscal policies suck as do his policies on education, health care, economics and foriegn policy. Constant failures in these areas, plus glaring short comings in homeland security funding, energy policy, FEMA and Iraq are nothing for history books to extoll this presidency.

I wanted to give him some props on NASA funding and re-energizing the exploration of space but short-sightedness on replacing funding for domestic aerospace applications for the Moon and Mars projects makes this a wash or a net loss. Exploration without commericalization of the science in the aerospace field is a mistake.

Even "PopulistDemocrat" seemed to be wavering lately in his support of John Edwards, turning to such non-populist alternatives as Warner and Bayh. He or she shouldn't sell Edwards short. Most of the "conventional wisdom" type pundits have been dismissing Edwards, barely mentioning his name. Edwards is smart, articulate, energetic, and has good progressive policies. The pundits favor "new" centrist faces as the only viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton. If the new faces, who are starting at near-zero in the name-recognition department, can outperform the experienced Edwards in debates and stump speeches, outcharm him in Iowa and New Hampshire living rooms, and outmaneuver him on the Sunday talk shows, I'll be surprised.

S.L.S.

Sorry about that, I was getting timed out and it seemed to continue to post it...I apologize for the wasted space

Jason: I understand why the President said "bring 'em on". He was trying to entice the enemy to face us in direct combat, which they would surely lose. But according to Drindl, if you managed to survive the fight without getting shot or blown up, your service doesn't count. So no, I don't think it was dumber than her comment. Having said that, it was obviously a dumb thing to say, and from a PR standpoint it made Bush seem like a cowboy. That is an image he is still trying to live down. I think it was a step in the right direction that he admitted that he should not have said that.

Lieing to get us in war bankrupting the country and cheating to win elections and spying on american citizens is refreshing? What is wrong with you?

King of Zouk - Oh, that's right. I still don't get the refreshing part.

Are solutions to issues that divide Americans refreshing?

I think a lot of people serve in the military-

although I think you meant for that to be the starting sentence, not your name...

Anyways, I think you're wrong about why people serve in the military, most who do it for the benefits don't stay for the whole 20 years. And the phrase "Good enough for Government work" wouldn't really apply, because unlike government work, the Military will kick you out if you can't meet certain standards.

Although your assessment that most are pencil pushers is semi-accurate in that most of the men and women in the military are more support staff than are fighting, you wrong to insinuate that most are butt kissers. They respect the people above them, and for good reason.

I've yet to meet someone who cites the retirementi n 20 years and the benefits as the reason they stay in the military. Yes the benefits get the short-stayers, those who stay for a few years then go to college or private sector, those who stay in longer do it because they enjoy the structure and the sense of pride that comes from serving their country.

He took on social security, immigration, tax cuts, etc.

King of Zouk - Bush is refreshing, but frustrating?

That's certainly a bizarre statement.

Squirt, you make an excellent point. Thank you for posting!

Edwards is a little too slick and I think most people see it for what it is. Do we really need more politicians who will say anything to get elected? Isn't this the problem with Hillary and Kerry? I must say that even though I 100% disagree with Murtha, he doesn't suffer this foible. It begins to look like McCain will march down the wrong path as well. I don't need to agree with everything you say, but it would be nice to trust you to stick to it. Bush, despite his shortcomings, actually did live by most of his campaign promises. and took on some unwinning issues. Refreshing but frustrating. and you people who thing Bush can't do anything right, ever, need not reply, we've heard it all before.

I think the only definitive thing that is coming from this poll is that Vilsack will be unable to seek the presidential nomination for the DNC. Edwards gaining a mere 4% from Clinton puts him within the margine of error (for a standard poll anyways), but more than that...we're a year away from Presidential Election season. It's been said enough, pre-season the only thing that counts is name recognition...right now Clinton, Edwards and Gore have it, Warner, Bayh and Feingold don't. Come a year from now, which equates to a smidget over an eternity in politics, everything might be different.

Hi FH, in terms of dumb and ignorant, I don't think anything can top the President saying "Bring 'em on" with troops in harms way" don't you think?

Edwards lack of expierience in world policy would be no problem. He still has more than this criminal unelected president we have now. Remember the war was based on lies to the American people about WMDs not about fighting terrorism. The war is all about oil, nothing else.

Hi, bhoomes

I think it's funny that you're the one who got personal first considering you're the one who made the bet, lol! There might be something to learn from that!

I wrote my previous comment before seeing you're last comment, bhoomes. However, I don't think Vice President Cheney cleaned his clock in the debate and I think the Vice President is in worse position now.

Drindl: Doesn't matter how long you spent in the military, bhoomes. The question is, did you spill blood? Otherwise your service doesn't count.

That's about the dumbest, most ignorant post I've ever seen on this blog.

I hope the far left does not hijack the democratic nomination in 08. I honestly believe I could vote for a Warner for president. I just hope I get the chance. I think he would be a president that this country could rally around, which is something the U.S. desparately needs right now.

All the talk about military service some 30 years ago is superfluous. current positions only should be considered. do you think we would have been able to kill the head terrorist from two countries away? this took daily operations in the combat zone. do you want to win or lose? Murtha has effectively slandered the Marines by convicting them before a trial. He doesn't deserve to lick their boots any longer. there is such a thing as squandering your heritage and Kerry and Murtha are prime examples. their actions after combat eliminate any benefit it may have accrued. this enforces ann coulter's point about finding a messenger who can't be reproached because of some moral imperative claim. I don't care what you did in the 60s. what did you vote on this year? whatever your position, debate it on the merits, not on your resume.

Hi, I do agree that former Sen. Edwards would be an excellent candidate. He reeks authenticity and as long as (this goes for any Democratic candidate) stays true to himself and natural on the campaign trail will do very well in a general election no matter who he is up against. He also has a very likeable personality and family which should make him very difficult for the Republicans to attack. The only thing I would have a question about is his foreign policy knowledge. That could be important in these times, especially in the debates. To me, if he can prove he can handle foreign policy, he might be the ideal candidate for Democrats to win and have govern effectively.

Well I am glad we all agree to be more civil and respectful(I am guilty also, politcs is about passion, so it's easy to get carried away at times with all own hubris)I think Edwards lone 6 year term in the Senate is a weak resume for such dangerous times but he would be a more formible candidate than Clinton, Kerry and some others because he is likable with a sunny personality. But with Cheney cleaning his clock at the VP debate, you have to wonder if he can you over that goal line.

Oh, I think those posting distortions know it--in fact, that's why they do it -- to spread disinformation. And that includes outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post, who printed verbatim the lies about Kerry --fully aware that they were lies.

If you don't correct the record, the liars get emboldened and the smears only get worse.

Edwards would be a great candidate to win Ohio but being from Ohio myself I disagree that Ohio is culturaly coservative. The big cities in Ohio are as liberal and culturaly diverse as any big city in the country. The Republican party barely exists in NE Ohio and about half the states population lives in the northeast corner. If not for the Bush Crime Family cheating to win Ohio in 2004 Kerry would be pres. The big cities in Ohio are what controls the vote here which are overwhelmingly Dem.

Judge: Agreed. The ideas and facts should carry the discussion. But sometimes there are not so obvious distortions and half-truths.

The negative comments on Murtha's service for example could have been taken at face value. However, I looked it up and it's even more admirable than I thought it was.

Those posting the not so obvious distortions may not actually know that what they're posting isn't correct, unless they are challenged.

Could my post have been more
neutral and less "Back at 'ya!"? Sure.

Maybe next time.

Edwards winning Iowa shows that Edwards is more of a rural or small town vote getter, and would run a very good grassroots campaign for President both in the primaries and the general election. The Democrats need a candidate like John Edwards who can win over these rural and more conservative voters, which he has proven when he won North Carolina in 1998 and then would have won reelection in 2004 if ran for it. Edwards can give good speeches too, but is a lot better in up and close personal visits, which will serve him well in places like Ohio. In fact, I feel Iowa is very much like Ohio. They both tend to be more economically liberal, and culturally conservative. Edwards will appeal to the economic part, while reaching out to the conservative portions of each state. I live in Ohio, and I think Edwards is the perfect candidate to pull the state. I think the primaries in 2008 will be a lot more splintered than in 2004 with the nominee taking less of a percentage of the vote than Kerry did. If Edwards keeps the Iowans that voted for him in 2004 then he will pull the state. I think all a candidate needs in 2008 to pull Iowa is 30% of the vote. If Edwards can do that and when Iowa, hang in New Hampshire and hit South Carolina hard then he can pull of the nomiantion. I am very optimistic about Edwards chances, and at the end of the day I think the three candidates that can win the whole thing boils down to Edwards, Clinton, and Warner. Feingold will flounder out like Howard Dean did in Iowa.

One question I think is relevant about Edwards -- and I don't know the answer. Is he strong enough, mean enough to withstand the media lynching that will surely greet whomever the Democrats choose as their candidate?

Just as they did with Clinton, with Gore, with Kerry, with every Dem candidate --we can expect them all--from Drudge to Fox to Matthews to the New York Times to report the winger smears as if they were news and not bother to refute outright lies.

Whoever runs must be prepared to fight whatever vicious lies and baseless slanders that are launched agaist him/her. Can Edwards do it?

What's all this natter about spilling blood? In the pre-Vietnam Army (RA all the way!) I learned that you take your chances with the rest of your generation, you go where you're sent, but you're not obliged to volunteer. They also serve who chogey Korean hills just in case.

Bhoomes, what does MSM stand for? Something like "conventional wisdom"? This blog is technical enough without acronyms.

Nor'Easter: I agree but this blog then just becomes another ALL CAPS flame war. We should remain interested in alternate points of view but not bother to respond to obvious distortions of reality.

Judge- Why respond? As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the socundrel!" Sometimes the disinformation, half-truths and falsehoods get to be just too much to go unchallenged.

BHoomes - When you challenge somebody to compare "service" medals, why do I get the feeling that you were nothing but a R E M F.

With respect to the legitimacy of Kerry's medals, his crew was unwavering in their support of him. That is all anybody needs to know. Even people on other boats "200 yards away" could not have the 1st hand knowledge which his crew had.

You don't like Kerry's politics, fine. But don't challenge his service, when the only people who could truly know what happened support him. What the President and his people have done in attacking McCain and Clelland and now Murtha [Bronze Star ("V" device) & two Purple Hearts] has been truly despicable.

FYI - Geniuses get Purple Hearts, idiots get Purple Hearts. Geniuses serve, idiots serve.

In a perfect World, if your ideas on National Defense (or Offense as is the case with this Administration) have merit, it should not make any difference whether you served or not. But, as a practical matter we do give a little more credence to those who served.

And, if your ideas have merit, you should not need to personally attack those who don't agree with you.

For doing that though, you are hereby awarded the Legion Without Merit.

It doesn't surprise me that Edwards is the Iowa frontrunner. It pleases me enormously. I'd vote for John Edwards in a heartbeat. I think he is the most intelligent, compassionate and wise men of all the rest out there trying to run. He does not strike me as the typical "politician-type", i.e., liars, say what you want to hear, promise everything, do nothing. As for not having served in the military, so what; as long as he has good military advisors, that's what counts. I truly believe that HE is the most honest and sincere! JMHO!

Condi Rice is just another one of the lieing cheating scum criminals that work in the Bush Crime Family. It is rediculous to even think that the racist fake phoney Christians that are the base for the anti american Republican party would ever vote for a black woman. do not worry you will wake up soon Tina, neocon fantasy land is almost over.

I like Edwards as a presidential candidate, and did last time, but he wasn't a great vice presidential candidate. He seemed to falter in the spotlight. He almost looked like a deer in the headlights when he gave his convention speech. He's great at small group politicking, and a good debater but I hope he is working on his big stage performances. He's a good smart guy and I'd love to see him improve as a candidate and maybe be President. Iowa has good taste.

You're right, Judge. It's hard to resist when someone sets themselves up like that, sorry.

For the record, I think Vilsack is in big trouble if he doesn't work a lot harder to define himself. Most people I know who are in politics themselves don't even know what he stands for or even who he is.

RMill and Viva: here's a great example. Bhoomes stated "just because Murtha served in military doesn't really mean anything(ie: never spilled any blood" and is now clearly hoisted by his own petard. Instead of coming around and just saying "OK, I was wrong to say that about a fellow veteran" he responds by attacking everyone in sight. He even uses a fellow poster's sincere gratitude toward veterans to attack the poster. There's really nothing of value here and it's totally irrelevant to CC's original post so why do posters continue to respond?

Tina, I think I speak for many when I say please let the nominee be Condi. ANY dem except perhaps Hillary will wipe the floor with her. Hell I bet even Kerry could beat that Bush apoligist. Yea, Mushroom cloud Condi for pres. thats the ticket.

Oh god, the Condi Flogger is back. As always, republican advice on political strategy? No, thank you. We don't want to be more like you, thanks. I think Washington has all the corruption it can handle now.

It isn't what I think, bhoomes, I'm simply repeating what YOU SAID. You're the one that's always attacking the military.

and FYI, I'm not a mama's boy, I'm a woman old enough to be a grandmother. I didn''t go to Nam but I lost a lot of friends and relatives and a fiance there. That's why I don't criticize military people without a damn good reason.

By the way, do people who know nothing about you question your service medals, the way you do Kerry's?

Back to the subject of 2008, one of the first polls taken in Iowa was by the Quad City Times, testing the Republicans for the next race for the White House. Condi Rice came out on top at 30%, showing that many Republicans/conservatives see her as a strong leader, with the foreign policy experience that will be needed in the future.

Cillizza wrote this" While it's important to take any poll conducted 18 months before caucus day with a grain of salt, the Register poll and the post-game analysis of the Yearly Kos convention are sure to be the hot topics among the Democratic chattering classes this week." I think he missed the whole point, the activists are the people who donate and work on campaigns, and to see thousands of people selecting Edwards, or Hillary, or Condi or McCain is a powerful statement NOW.

Name recognition is a valid point, but if Kerry is not supported today like he was in 2004, it shows his name is LOSER. Voters who supported Gore in 2000 might come back to him if he decided to run, but the biggest fact is that Hillary will have to start the hard work toward 2008 immediately after November 2006 or she will get washed away by the waves of Democrats running for the nomination.
Look at all of them:
Kerry
Edwards
Vilsack
Daschel
Feingold
Warner
Bayh
Hillary
Wesley Clark
Biden
Richardson
Dodd
Gore

The Democrat party is being sliced and diced for new leadership, and it will be a battle for who wins the nomination. I listed 13 names, and whether they decide to run or not, they still divide the party into the anti-war segment or the FDR/Truman wing, the fiscal side vs the socialist side, the labor unions and the business people, plus all the women in the Democrats group are not 100% supporting Hillary.

But I am very pleased that the name of Condi Rice is high on the list of Republicans for 2008. The support for her is remarkable right now, and in another year, the momentum will be larger and based in key states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and S Carolina.

Bhoomes -- Does your little "bet" about not attacking people only extend to those on the left? B/c your tone strikes me as inconsistent with that type of criticism.

On the Kerry front, I seriously can't believe anyone is still trumpeting the Swift Boat lies. Hate the guy if you want for being "too liberal" or even for his anti-war activities. But to impugn the man's character by questioning whether he should have gotten his medals? That's just ridiculous.

Think about your approach to this issue -- you're choosing to believe statements made by people who (1) were never on a boat with Kerry and didn't serve with him; and (2) clearly have a partisan axe to grind over the sworn statements of every living member of his boat crew (republican and democrat) who support that he was a hero. How, other than blind partisanship, can you seriously justify such statements?

Drindl that is not what you said to PFC Rob Millet last Friday, you profusely thanked him for his service as well as you should. I was dodging incoming while you two little mama's boys were still wetting the bed (probably still living at home with Ma so she can make your bed) I'll compare my service medals against you sissies anyday.

"Hey Ohio guy, I spent 20 years in the military"

Bhoomes -

Having served in the military I would expect a lot better from you. It is the most dishonorable thing someone can do to slander a veteran's war record as you do to John Kerry's b/c you don't agree with him politically. Pathetic and completely lacking in class. None of this changes the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies made up slanderous allegations about his war record. Like I said, I would expect better from another Veteran.

Doesn't matter how long you spent in the military, bhoomes. The question is, did you spill blood? Otherwise your service doesn't count.

Hey Ohio guy, I spent 20 years in the military but I don't believe that makes me any more credible to speak on defense issues as anyone else. Most honorbale vets would never take a purple heart (no less than 3) for a minor insignificant wound that didn't even require an overnight stay in the hospital. It is disrespectful to the vets who gave up limbs and other serious injuries.

The Swift Boat slanders and lies are of a piece with the whole republican military strategy, which is to give lip service [and car magnets] to 'supporting the troops' -- while actually attacking soldiers, especially wounded ones, at every opportunity.

Look at what they did to Max Clellan. Truly filthy and despicable. Or John McCain. No, the truth is they hate soldiers because they are bedwetting cowards and terrified to serve themselves.

I am a bit surprised that Feingold did not do better. Wisconsin is close and he has made news lately. That is has not translated in caucus goers minds needs to be tended to.

Bayh from nearby Indiana should also be a little concerned but as stated, he will have the warchest to "introduce himself" whereas Feingold still needs to raise more money.

That "never spilled any blood Purple Heart winner" line about Kerry is another lie spread by the Swift Boat Liars. The military does, in fact, routinely award Purple Hearts for very minor injuries sustained in combat. Kerry was not seriously injured but he did shed blood. The questions about Kerry's service only surfaced after he became the leader of Vietnam Veteran Against the War. The man Kerry rescued under fire from the Viet Cong was one of the most vocal critics of the Swift Boat slanders.

Not surprising with all of Edwards' folks on the ground helping Culver. Vilsack must be crushed though.

Primary Primer

June 13 Primaries
Maine
Gov
Dem
Baldacci* v. Miller

Rep
Emery
Mills
Woodcock

Survey USA
May Approval
Baldacci (D)* 43% (up from 39% in April and up from 41% in Feb)

June 5
Rep Primary
Emery 31%
Mills 27%
Woodcock 29%

Rasmussen
Head to Head
May 4
Baldacci (D)* 44%
Emery (R) 36%

Baldacci (D)* 44%
Mills (R) 36%

Baldacci (D)* 46%
Woodcock (R) 33%

North Dakota-
US Senate

Survey USA
May Approval
Conrad (D)* 71% (up from 67% in April and 68% in Feb)

Only one republican filed, a town councilman who has never run statewide. Conrad is one of the most popular US Senators in the country and expected to win easily, having chased better known candidate from the field.

South Carolina
Gov
Dem
Moore v. Willis

Rep
Sanford*

Survey USA
May Approval
Sanford (R)* 53% (up from 51% in April and up from 47% in Feb)

Rasmussen Head to Head
April 20

Moore (D) 33%
Sanford (R)* 52%

Willis (D) 28%
Sanford (R)* 55%

Only interesting in that the ease or difficulty of Sanford's victory could help or hurt his 2008 presidential aspirations.

Virginia
US Senate
Dem
Miller v. Webb
Rep
Allen*

Survey USA
May Approval
Allen (R)* 53% (up from 49% in April and up from 51% in Feb)

Rasmussen Head to Head
April 11
Miller (D) 34%
Allen (R)* 51%

Webb (D) 30%
Allen (R)* 50%

"Hoyer wants to stay the course in Iraq, while Murtha wanted to pull all the troops out two years ago. This kind of policy debate and infighting amongst the dems(Pelosi hates Hoyer and put Murtha up to running) can only be good news for the opposition party."

Hate to break it to you Bhoomes, but none of this will mean anything until after the election. And if Dems do take control of the House, having Murtha as majority leader would be a Godsend to the party and the country for that matter. Murtha's plan to redeploy the troops is right where most of the American people are now, unlike the republicans who for some reason adhere to an idiotic "stay the course" the strategy that has worked sooooooooooo well. We'll see which plan voters prefer.

"Kudos to Drindl for no personal attacks(he won the bet for now)but just because Murtha served in military doesn't really mean anything(ie: never spilled any blood, purple heart winner John Kerry)"

Bhoomes, I'm willing to bet that you don't know jack about Murtha's military record. And his military service DOES mean something - it means he knows how the military works, and it gives him close ties to generals in the Pentagon. As far as John Kerry never having spilled any blood, while he may not have been wounded himself, he has killed enemy soldiers in Vietnam, at least one in hand-to-hand combat in order to save the rest of his crews' lives, so please get your facts straight and don't claim that he hasn't spilled any blood, b/c he has. Kerry has killed to defend his country, which I suspect is a lot more than any of his chickenhawk detractors who criticize his war record have done.

'Just because Murtha served in military doesn't really mean anything' -- is the typical republican way of 'supporting the troops.'. See, they have to die before their service means anything. And even then, if they're a Democrat it doesn't mean anything.

Of course, by that logic, the 'service' of George W. Bush doesn't really mean anything either. But then we already knew that, didn't we?

Kudos to Drindl for no personal attacks(he won the bet for now)but just because Murtha served in military doesn't really mean anything(ie: never spilled any blood, purple heart winner John Kerry)

This is not that surprising. HRC has high name recongition, but does not excite any Democrats I know. Edwards is much more appealing.

Steny Hoyer is widely disliked among progressives, as he should be, for his obseisance to global corporations at the expense of American taxpayers. He's a K Street crony and the less of them, the better. Murtha is closer to the military establisment than anyone in Congress -- he speaks for them-- and as such would be valuable in garnering military support for Dems.

Hoyer wants to stay the course in Iraq, while Murtha wanted to pull all the troops out two years ago. This kind of policy debate and infighting amongst the dems(Pelosi hates Hoyer and put Murtha up to running) can only be good news for the opposition party. Also note USA Today, you dems are already losing steam as we closer to the election. It is one thing I love about you dems, you always find a way to lose.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wouldn't be so happy about it though, Murtha adds a good amount of stregth to any security issue.

Andy, Murtha is running for majority leader not Speaker of the House(he's already pledged his vote to Pelosi) This is great for Republicans because Steny Hoyer should ne next in line for majority leader if dems win house. It means the dems are eating their own and we conservatives can sit back and enjoy the show. Pass the popcorn please.

I also was suprised by Edwards coming in so strong. I guess this supports his campaign's claim that if the Iowa caucus was held two weeks later Edwards would have won. I also wonder about the validity of this with Gore not being included. I am no supporter of a Gore run, but his support is growing fast and Edwards is shooting for the same group of voters.
I think the original article got it right when they said this will really hurt Vilsack's fundraising more than anything.
I think the winner's in this poll are Edwards, Clinton (takes her name out of the spotlight for a little while), and Feingold (anytime he runs even with folks like Warner and Bayh he stays viable). The obvious losers are Vilsack and Kerry. Hopefully Kerry will get the picture and drop his campaign.

PS How about Murtha talking about running for speaker of the house. That is not good news for the Republicans who want to paint a Democratic take-over as giving Pelosi the keys to the castle. CC it would be nice if you could get off the craps table and tell us what the insiders are saying about that move.

Iowa is made for Edwards because of his superior retail campaign skills. At this stage Edwards remains the most talented stump speaker in the prospective field of Democrats. I'm more partial to Feingold or Gore then Edwards. But I would certainly prefer him over Hillary, Kerry, Bayh (who supported bankruptcy legislation at the expense of working Americans and small business entrepreneurs) and Warner (a serial panderer of the DLC and Kossacks alike).

Wesley Clark better take Iowa more seriously in '08 and not blow if off as he did in '04.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

At this stage of the game, a lot of it is name recognition but having Edwards coming in 1st is somewhat of a surprise. Clinton believes the MSM that the nomination is already hers and she's trying to play to crossover voters and independents. I'll bet the left will keep her from getting the nomination, along with her husband who is still messing around(can't blame him, no normal male what want to sleep next to her) I still think Russ from Wisconsin will end of being the nominee.