Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Well done!
[url=http://obvvwwbd.com/fwvg/wcts.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://nphjijnw.com/ythq/boyd.html]Cool site[/url]

Great work!
http://etlxwdiz.com/vvlc/zdbx.html | http://kprwkfio.com/eidd/fhjb.html

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Really nice interesting site. thank you for it.
buy viagra online
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main4.htm?buy-viagra-online
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main4.htm?buy-viagra-online]buy viagra online[/url]

Thank you very much, for this site!
viagra
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main3.htm?viagra
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main3.htm?viagra]viagra[/url]

Nice good site,dont let it go away.
viagra sale
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main2.htm?viagra-sale
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main2.htm?viagra-sale]viagra sale[/url]

Take care of it and keep it on the road!
viagra online
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main5.htm?viagra-online
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main5.htm?viagra-online]viagra online[/url]

To the person who said Senator Hillary Clinton comes across as condescending when you meet her, I wish to submit that you haven't met her. I have met and spoken with her; and I have met and spoken with Bill and Chelsea as well. Last week, I met John Edwards, although very briefly (a handshake and a few words); and I have met Senator Edward Kennedy, as well as Maria Shriver (Arnold's wife). I get around. :)

Consider all of the above people and guess who blew me away with her warmth and genuine interest? Hillary. Followed closely by Chelsea. I had no idea I would be treated so warmly or asked such wonderful questions by Senator Clinton. I will never forget it. I have never met a politician who held both of my hands the entire time she was talking with me; and she did the same thing with many other people that evening. Once she announces and starts actively campaigning, something that Bill will also be doing on her behalf, I expect her polling numbers to go through the roof.
Her resume is impressive too - not one that Edwards or Obama can match, either in domestic policy or foreign policy experience.

Robert, you wrote:

"I have an even stronger negative view of Mark Warner, b/c he repealed his state's progressive income tax and replaced it with a regressive sales tax."

Do us all a favor -- please don't comment on Virginia politics if you don't know what the heck you're talking about! Warner did no such thing. We still have an income tax in Virginia. It was left unchanged by Warner. We still have a sales tax, too. But he did reduce the sales tax on food from 5.5% to 2.5%.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Robert,

I agree that whoever is the blue candidate is massively likely to win the POTUS, given Bush's impact over the last 6 years. Unless the Dem congress stuffs up big time, or the POTUS candidate spectacularly collapses, its theirs for the taking.

Which makes it more important that the candidate is a good one. I can't go past Gore. Highly qualified, been proven correct on major issues in recent times (global warming, Iraq), and not desparately pandering to $$$/media, etc. I very much hope that he goes and gets it. But I'm not sure he will.

Richardson would be my second pick. Good CV, a mix of foreign policy experience and executive experience is just what is needed.

I'm not terribly impressed with the top 3. Edwards and Obama strike me as excellent style with some substance but not experienced in the school of hard knocks. One senate campaign doth not a President make.

Hillary is divisive, as curious as that is given her moderate record. I do wonder though whether her ambition is all consuming. Did she build a moderate record for 2008?

Of the rest, Vilsack seems nice but harmless. Biden is a windbag. Dodd is delusioned, and Kerry... well lets stop there.

Oh, if Clark could sort out his views on the domestic front he may be quite appealing. Little political experience (school of hard knocks) may be a problem.

Thats my view. But I don't think the electorate will go along with that.

French physicist Ampere (1775-1836) had two cats, one big and a one small, and he loved them very much. But when the door was closed cats couldn't enter or exit the room. So Ampere ordered two holes to be made in his door: one big for the big cat, and one small for the small cat. ciales impotence drug eli lilly co [URL=http://admin.albright.edu/spiritawards/inc/Ciales-Impotence-Drug-Eli-Lilly-Co.html] ciales impotence drug eli lilly co[/URL] http://admin.albright.edu/spiritawards/inc/Ciales-Impotence-Drug-Eli-Lilly-Co.html

In Indiana a person who dyes, stains, or otherwise alters the natural coloring of a bird or rabbit commits a Class B misdemeanor interest only [URL=http://interactive.cens.ucla.edu/nims/docs/PW-Morgage-Rates.html] interest only[/URL] http://interactive.cens.ucla.edu/nims/docs/PW-Morgage-Rates.html

In Indiana men are prohibited from standing in a bar. Drinks on the house are illegal. Drinking from your own bottle in a bar can lead to your arrest calculate morgage payment [URL=http://www.albright.edu/dcp/reg/American-Mortgage.html] calculate morgage payment[/URL] http://www.albright.edu/dcp/reg/American-Mortgage.html

In Florida it is illegal to fish while driving across a bridge refinancing [URL=http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Refinancing.html] refinancing[/URL] http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Refinancing.html

In Seattle it is illegal to carry a fishbowl or aquarium onto a bus because the sound of the water sloshing may disturb other passengers aisne [URL=http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Mortgage-Calculator.html] aisne[/URL] http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Mortgage-Calculator.html

IMHO, Edwards is making a huge mistake running to the left of Obama and Clinton. It helps him stand out in the primaries, but he'll get crushed in the general election by trying to run left of Dennis Kucinich; that only makes sense if he's really running for VP, b/c it will draw votes and attention in the primaries. His entire focus seems to be following up on LBJ's War on Poverty without any plan to pay for it. While I share Edwards' political views, he should be focusing on the middle class as well. This is the America that recently enacted the Welfar Reform Act. Adopting Dennis Kucinich's political platform, and then some, is not going to win Edwards any independent votes in a general election.

Tina,

If I were a Republican, I'd be afraid of Obama because he excites Democrats, independents, and even some moderate Republicans. Blacks make up a huge percentage of the vote in key swing states. If Obama heads the blue ticket, Blacks will vote in record numbers in key swing states.

I started subscribing to the Washington Post when I was maybe 13 years old, using my allowance. I've heard Obama speak live twice, and I've never experienced another politician of the same level. There was always a real electricity in the air, in the audiences that came to hear Obama. Obama has a huge donor base that I believe strongly believes in him. I've donated to his campaign multiple times, and will do so again if he runs. As long as Obama doesn't make any novice mistakes, I think the sky's the limit for Obama. Why? Because we live in the age of Google, where brilliant prodigies are hired and rapidly promoted with little or no experience if they're considered exceptionally gifted in their field. I believe Obama is a once in a generation political leader.

Hispanics also make up a huge percentage of Southern voters. I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be unbeatable.

Republicans already have a lock on the racist/xenophobic vote, so they're not going to pick up more votes b/c of Obama's skin color or "funny name."

JayPe,

Thank you for writing. I think Gore is waiting for Clinton, Obama, Edwards to falter, or at least fail to inspire. I think Gore definitely wants to get in, but he is waiting to be drafted. If Gore gets in, I think he wins the Dems nomination. He probably picks Obama or Richardson for VP.

No matter who the blues nominate this time, I think we win - as long as our candidates don't screw it up with yet another slip of the tongue. McCain is experienced, but also too tied to the unpopular Iraq War. He's also a lot more conservative than people think, and that will come out in a general election, as may his explosive temper. Guiliani has no experience that qualifies him to be president. Romney is now too conservative for me, but I also don't see him getting past the primaries with his formerly liberal views on social issues.

I don't know enough about Richardson to have a strong opinion about him. He looks good on paper though, with both national and state government experience. I heard him give an interview on NPR a few years ago, and he seemed intelligent and sincere. The Hispanic vote is going to be huge in the next 20 years, so it's important that we get Hispanics accustom to voting blue. If he runs, sounds thoughtful, intelligent and charismatic, then I'd say he definitely has a real chance.

I think Obama and Edwards come in first and second, or second and first, in all four of the first primaries. I think Obama does well in S Carolina's: 95% of the Black vote, and a large fraction of the white vote. I think Edwards basically gets the rest of S Carolina's vote.

I think Hillary would be a good president. But I don't think she wins any of the early primaries. In fact, my guess is she drops to third place in all four early states.

I'm a little suspicious of Bayh b/c I'm always suspicious of political nepotism. His father was prominent in statewide politics, which is how he got his start. His politics are also somewhat to the right of primary going Democrats.

I have an even stronger negative view of Mark Warner, b/c he repealed his state's progressive income tax and replaced it with a regressive sales tax. I'm always suspicious of a Democratic politician who boasts of being popular in a red state; they're popular in a red state for a reason.

In any event, I'll support whichever of the current Democratic candidates wins the nomination.

What impresses you most about Edwards? In what ways do you think he'd make a better candidate and president than Obama?

Who do you like after Edwards?

While coming in to view opinions about the 2008 race, it was surprising to read that Robert thinks the Republican party is afraid of Obama. May I ask why?

Robert, the Republican party has not been badmouthing Madam Secretary Condi Rice or Colin Powell. With their Rock Star status in our nation, I believe Condi and Colin are examples of the Party of Abraham Lincoln for the 21st Century. Both of these African-American leaders has support in our party. Now the only people who seem to badmouth either of these people are the Democrats and liberals. So may I say it seems they are more afraid of Condi Rice?
Look at the Discussion blog today, January 2, by Michael Abramowitz regarding Condi as a possible VP choice:

From Fort Wayne, Ind..: Michael, who is the most likely VP, in either party, right now, without knowing who the nominee will be?

Thanks!

Michael Abramowitz: OK, here are some possibilities: On the Democratic side: Vilsack of Ohio, Bayh of Indiana and Sebelius of Kansas. Maybe Obama if his presidential chances falter.

On the Republican side: Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jeb Bush, maybe Condi Rice if she is interested in elective office.

_______________sounds like a few people at the Washington Post might be paying attention to the real possible impact of Condi in the 2008 cycle. With her high support to RUN in national polls, she can delay making up her mind until later in 2007. If she is still highly regarded to RUN by the national polls in September 2007, she will TOSS the 2008 race upside-down and create a whole new chessboard to play upon before the first primary ballot is cast.

That's an impressive entourage he's been able to round up. Of course, having a good campaign staff is great, but it's overrated. Candidates, not their campaign personnel, win or lose elections.

Also, there seems to be far too much focus on the top three candidates or potential candidates in each party (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Democrats; McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the GOP). Let's not forget that there are still 11 potential candidates on the Democratic side and 13 of them on the Republican side.

At this early point, it's still anyone's game to win. Even a candidate who raises little cash and ends up with mostly unknowns on his campaign payroll at the end of 2007 could still jump to the front of the line with a surprisingly strong performance in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

Remember George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Gary Hart is 1984? Both were considered also-rans coming out of the previous year. However, victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively, changed their fortunes rather quickly and both were nearly propelled to their party's presidential nomination out of nowhere.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Don't forget to put Dick Gephardt up on that list. Here in NYC I have first hand knowledge of him introducing Edwards to a big money donor a few weeks back...Perhaps Dick wants to be in the VP mix?? www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Robert, back to Obama Vs Edwards...

Without question Clinton is the front runner at this stage, particularly from the money angle. However I'm sure many candidates will think that as long as they stay on the ballot, if they do well in Iowa then the sky (WH) is the limit. Dean had lots of money, but momentum counts for a lot.

Obama appears to be able to raise masses, owing to his star appeal. However if he does run it will be intersting to see if people actually donate heavily to him. Or will they start to worry about his inexperience? So, he may compete with Hillary, but he may not do as well as everyone expects.

Edwards will not be able to raise as much as Hillary, but given his supurb numbers in Iowa he doesn't need to. If he can stay competitive and win Iowa well, people may swing behind him much like they did with Kerry. He's gaurenteed to do well in Nevada and SC as well.

I agree, if Gore runs, he will compete financially with Hillary. Will he run? Time will tell, he certainly doesn't need to start campaigning until much later this year - he hardly needs to boost name recognition..

Do you think any other candidates have a shot? Personally, I think if Gore stays out and the big 3 suck up all the remaining attention, there is room for one more. They would have to be well qualified and experienced, play on concerns of the big 3's inexperience (particularly if McCain locks in the Repub nomination) and run late. I was picking Bayh, now I'm picking Richardson. He's got a great CV.

Your thoughts?

grumpy and disillusioned.

MikeB, step away from the computer for a few days and then reread some of your posts. You need a vacation. However, unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions about all Edwards supporters, and about Edwards himself, based on your abusive behavior towards Amy. Barack Obama would be by far the best candidate and president in 2008.

Amy, one thing you ARE NOT, is a liberal. You are a leftist. In that, you are as unthinking and trollish as any right right nuts on this board. When I challenged you are your immature and senseless claim of racism as my reason for supporting Edwards over Obama, you never answered. When I pointed out what sort of hate filled monsters Naderites were, wishing death for my son, you justifed it as mere over exuberance for "their position". You, and all leftists like you, are a boil on the Democratic Party and I, for one, would be delighted if you went away. That you support Obama is reason enought for me or any genuine liberal to oppose him out of hand. Your sort never has had any sense of deceny or morality and I am sick of you leftist twits.

believe Kerry threw the election.

a. monster

support bullies be they of jewish descent or of the Jesus of Nazareth process...

I suggest you reel it in richard...

Israel is being supported now , only because they make a good smoke screen to hide behind.

when the oil is gone , with the attitude Israel is displaying it will be like the red guard children going into rich peoples houses with hammers , once the Americans leave .....

why?

no one likes a bully,

want to stop that? ask Israel to stop acting like everyone but them is a nazi...

its called projection and acting out, Israel is mentally ill.

Chris said, "John Kerry came up short in his 2004 challenge to President Bush."

That was by choice, he and Edwards could have gone all the way. Millions of people pleaded with them to stay and fight, but to everyones dismay, they both gave up prematurely and walked away from another obviously stolen election.

Plus, Edwards could have helped out with numerous election fraud law suits in Ohio and other states, but instead, he went into hiding.

How can anyone vote for a man who gave up on himself and the Democratic Party when it counted the most? For this reason alone, Edwards as well as Kerry are both unelectable no matter what kind of talent they have working for them on their campaigns, no matter how much money they have in their war chests, and no matter how much propaganda the MSM manufactures for them.

" In a pre-emptive strike against anti-gun leaders in the new Congress, the National Rifle Association is planning to distribute a graphic brochure that drafts its Second Amendment mission in alarmist terms.

"Freedom in Peril," a rough copy of which was leaked onto the Internet last Friday, takes aim at the enemies of gun rights: from New Orleans policemen who confiscated weapons during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to "one-world extremists" of the United Nations, animal-rights "terrorists," and illegal alien gangs.

It also takes shots, with unflattering caricatures and descriptions, at personalities like Katie Couric, Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore and politicians such as Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

"Second Amendment freedom today stands naked in the path of a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known," reads the foreword to the brochure. "Acting alone and in shadowy coalitions, these enemies of freedom are preparing for a profound and foreboding confrontation in which they will not make the mistakes of their predecessors. We'd better be ready."

' The latest video of Saddam's execution, with a soundtrack that shows that his guards were taunting him up to the last moment before the lever was pulled and he fell to his death, has been burning through cyberspace in Iraq and across the Middle East.

It is not only the bad taste of mocking a man about to die that has been getting angry reactions here: The worst aspect is the sectarian nature of the insults.

The guards shout "Moqtada, Moqtada," as Saddam is reciting a prayer with the noose around his neck: They are referring to Moqtada al Sadr, the extremist Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army is the most feared militia in Iraq, widely thought to operate death squads targeting Sunnis.

When Saddam responds angrily to them, saying that such behavior "has torn Iraq apart," he is voicing an opinion that most Sunnis -- but also many moderate Shiites -- would agree with.

Saddam is dead and buried now, but the sectarian divide in Iraq yawns ever wider. For months, the United States has been leaning on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to do more to crack down on the abuses of the Mahdi army and other militias. By allowing their representatives to seemingly turn the execution of a former president -- however reviled -- into a crude exercise in sectarian vengeance, Maliki's government may only further alienate Sunnis.'

"Dear son, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, "I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I've been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.

The journal will have to speak for Charles now. He was killed Oct. 14 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armored vehicle in Baghdad. Charles, 48, had been assigned to the Army's First Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Tex. He was a month from completing his tour of duty.

For our son's first Christmas, Charles had hoped to take him on a carriage ride through Central Park. Instead, Jordan, now 9 months old, and I snuggled under a blanket in a horse-drawn buggy. The driver seemed puzzled about why I was riding alone with a baby and crying on Christmas Day. I told him.''

"The US military death toll in Iraq has topped 3,000 and this morning I am asking myself how long the Bush Administration and the McCain/Lieberman doctrinal supporters of escalation will be allowed to continue their folly without being asked how they do so in the absence of public support. Are they elected to serve the wants of the American public as a whole, or only to foist the tyrranny of the minority of fervent, self-deluded neocons on the rest of the nation? From the Time article:

Others, not least the White House and the Pentagon, say, all too blithely, that numbers like these are arbitrary and unimportant. But that only highlights the non-numerical false milestones and would-be watersheds they have set up in the past. It is not just statistics that can lie. When Saddam was captured, it was going to break the back of the insurgency. Same when a democratic government was elected, a constitution drafted, a coalition government formed. The latest false milestone is the death of Saddam, another momentous event in the history of Iraq that is unlikely to change a single thing for American forces or those who are fighting them.

In Plato's Apology, Socrates declares that "the unexamined life is not worth living," refusing to accept a penalty of silence and/or the cessation of public discussion and search for the truth as the price for remaining alive. One of the more troubling aspects of the Bush Presidency for me (aside from the disregard for the rule of law and the attempted perversion and warping of the Constitution for their own unilateral Presidential purposes) has been that feeling that the only things which are examined are those which uphold or sustain the truth that they want to have us all believe -- and not the actual truth of the matters at hand. This morning, Arthur Schlesinger has an insightful op-ed in the NYTimes on this very point:

We are the world's dominant military power, and I believe a consciousness of history is a moral necessity for a nation possessed of overweening power. History verifies John F. Kennedy's proposition, stated in the first year of his thousand days: "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient -- that we are only 6 percent of the world's population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Is it just me?.... I somehow view Edwards as a lightweight.

I've listened to him, even met and talked with him, and there is just something too perfect, and a little robotic about him. No Biden punch to his statements.

Anyone else view him this way?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Chris -- do you still think McCain is the front runner? I think he's sinking fast--his own party doesn't seem to buy his bushist proposal for an endless troop commitment:

'Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a "surge" of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What's more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with George W. Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add troops.'

Republicans are scared to death of Obama, which is why they are already going after him hard. Republicans would much rather have Hillary Clinton or Edwards as an opponent.

But the keys to winning are bringing out more Democrats and swing voters. How would random Republicans know which Democrat will best do this, when Democrats aren't sure of the answer themselves.

In 2005, almost 47 million Americans -- including more than 8 million children -- were uninsured, and many more had inadequate insurance.

Apologists for our system try to minimize the significance of these numbers. Many of the uninsured, asserted the 2004 Economic Report of the President, "remain uninsured as a matter of choice."

And then you wake up. A scathing article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times described how insurers refuse to cover anyone with even the slightest hint of a pre-existing condition. People have been denied insurance for reasons that range from childhood asthma to a "past bout of jock itch."

Some say that we can't afford universal health care, even though every year lack of insurance plunges millions of Americans into severe financial distress and sends thousands to an early grave. But every other advanced country somehow manages to provide all its citizens with essential care. The only reason universal coverage seems hard to achieve here is the spectacular inefficiency of the U.S. health care system.

Americans spend more on health care per person than anyone else -- almost twice as much as the French, whose medical care is among the best in the world. Yet we have the highest infant mortality and close to the lowest life expectancy of any wealthy nation. How do we do it?

Part of the answer is that our fragmented system has much higher administrative costs than the straightforward government insurance systems prevalent in the rest of the advanced world. As Anna Bernasek pointed out in yesterday's New York Times, besides the overhead of private insurance companies, "there's an enormous amount of paperwork required of American doctors and hospitals that simply doesn't exist in countries like Canada or Britain."

In addition, insurers often refuse to pay for preventive care, even though such care saves a lot of money in the long run, because those long-run savings won't necessarily redound to their benefit. And the fragmentation of the American system explains why we lag far behind other nations in the use of electronic medical records, which both reduce costs and save lives by preventing many medical errors.

The truth is that we can afford to cover the uninsured. What we can't afford is to keep going without a universal health care system.

If it were up to me, we'd have a Medicare-like system for everyone, paid for by a dedicated tax that for most people would be less than they or their employers currently pay in insurance premiums. This would, at a stroke, cover the uninsured, greatly reduce administrative costs and make it much easier to work on preventive care.

Such a system would leave people with the right to choose their own doctors, and with other choices as well: Medicare currently lets people apply their benefits to H.M.O.'s run by private insurance companies, and there's no reason why similar options shouldn't be available in a system of Medicare for all. But everyone would be in the system, one way or another.

'The New York Times reports that the last 1,000 American deaths--the body count had reached 2,000 in October 2005--resulted from an increased success rate for roadside bombs (despite improvements in body armor) and largely affected the regular military services, because many National Guard and reserve units have been rotated out. The article also points out that 93 American soldiers have committed suicide in Iraq and that more than 20,000 have been wounded. The Washington Post notes that casualty rates will stay steady unless there is a major change in strategy, and finds that many congressional Republicans such as Kansas Sen. (and potential 2008 presidential candidate) Sam Brownback are skeptical of President George W. Bush's expected plan to send more troops to Iraq. Only the Los Angeles Times points out that at least 5,900 Iraqi soldiers and police have died in the same time period.'

The comments over the past few days are indeed convincing me more and more that Hillary is the best the dems have to offer for 08. IMHO, Edwards and Obama both look good to a lot of folk now and I have not posted much in the past days and am trying to get a better read of just what is going on. Several repub friends are getting info that they want to get out the false impression that the dems will support Obama, when in fact they will not. They are scared to death of Hillary and I have mentioned this several times and am wondering why some of the dems are trying to futher this idea that Hillary is cold, polorizing, un-electable, negatives to high, to name a few. The ticket of Clinton/Warner is a winner in 08.

I should correct something from my last post. There are two clear front runners for the Democratic nomination: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

These are the only two candidates who can without question raise $100 million to run for president.

It was Barack Obama - not Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, or second tier presidential candidates - who was the most sought after campaigner and fundraiser for Democratic candidates in 2006.

I think Obama has a great shot. I think clearly Hillary is the front-runner. "Edwards" will almost certainly flame out after people really consider whether they want someone with hardly no experience what-so-ever in the White House. He may not even run [after he loses in Iowa] in the end. My big question is: can Obama actually raise the money necessary to compete with Hillary in the high dollar markets in some states? [Obviously, yes.] I mean, Hillary will be able to raise the money to flood the airwaves in every state and my question is can Edwards do that? If Gore runs, he will be able to. I'm just not sure anyone else other than Gore [and Obama] will be able to compete with Hillary in fundraising and advertising.

I think Edwards has a great shot. I think clearly Hillary is the front-runner. "Obamamania" will almost certainly flame out after people really consider whether they want someone with hardly no experience what-so-ever in the White House. He may not even run in the end. My big question is: can Edwards actually raise the money necessary to compete with Hillary in the high dollar markets in some states? I mean, Hillary will be able to raise the money to flood the airwaves in every state and my question is can Edwards do that? If Kerry runs, he will be able to. I'm just not sure anyone else other than Kerry will be able to compete with Hillary in fundraising and advertising.

There are plenty of people who are liberal or moderate in terms of social issues and foreign policy in general, but feel strongly about Israel. The Jewish vote is largely Democratic. So don't assume that Richard is an extreme right-winger just because of his position on this one issue.

And maybe your criticism of the posting styles of others would be more credible if you followed the blog rules and signed your posts.

In a followup to a recent story about Hillary as the most admired woman in the US, when it comes to Condi Rice vs Hillary Clinton, there seems to be a GENDER GAP.
The Gallup poll details show that when men were asked which woman they most admired,
Hillary was at 11% and Condi was at 10%. That is a virtual tie, sitting up the question of which woman is preferred as presidential quality?
With women selected which women they most admired, they chose Hillary by 14% and Condi at only 5%. Does that mean if Condi tried to run for president that she would not be favored as the choice by most women?
Therefore, the Gallup poll is only a small test of the potential race of 2008 if ANY woman decided to run in 2008.
NOW THAT IS NEWSWORTHY FOR DISCUSSION.
WHICH WOMAN HAS THE MOST SUPPORT TO BECOME OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?

BAGHDAD, Iraq The Pentagon announced the death of a Texas soldier today, raising the number of US military deaths in Iraq to at least three (t) thousand since the war began.

--and more than 22,000 gravely injured.

happy new year, mr. bush. i'm sure you're having a real nice party...

Richard, shouting in the house is rude. I note that you are echoing the habits and sentimeents of some extreme right wingers, who seem to have more loyalty to the neocons who currently are running Israel into the ground than the United States. I care about Israel too, my family is Jewish, but I am first of all an American and I have to put the intersts of my own country first. Israel has a tremendous number of spies in this country, trying to steal military information, and they have no problem putting their own interests first. Do you ever see any Israelis worrying about whether their actions will harm Americans? No.

In any case, you would never vote for a Dem anyway... you will vote for whomever Rush tells you to.

Richard, shouting in the house is rude. I note that you are echoing the habits and sentimeents of some extreme right wingers, who seem to have more loyalty to the neocons who currently are running Israel into the ground than the United States. I care about Israel too, my family is Jewish, but I am first of all an American and I have to put the intersts of my own country first. Israel has a tremendous number of spies in this country, trying to steal military information, and they have no problem putting their own interests first. Do you ever see any Israelis worrying about whether their actions will harm Americans? No.

In any case, you would never vote for a Dem anyway... you will vote for whomever Rush tells you to.

BY HIS APPOINTMENT OF DAVID BONOIR AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER SEN. EDWARDS HAS DECIDED TO WRITE OFF A LARGE PART OF THE JEWISH VOTE. MR. BONOIR HAD ONE OF THE MOST ANTI-ISRAEL RECORD IN CONGRESS. MR. EDWARDS DECISION TO PICK MR. BONOIR CALLS INTO QUESTION HIS WHOLE MINSET. I FOR ONE WILL NO LONGER CONSIDER HIM A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

The US Interior Department's Mineral Management Service under scrutiny for alleged kickbacks scheme:

The Justice Department is investigating whether the director of a multibillion-dollar oil-trading program at the Interior Department has been paid as a consultant for oil companies hoping for contracts.

The director of the program and three subordinates, all based in Denver, have been transferred to different jobs and have been ordered to cease all contacts with the oil industry until the investigation is completed some time next spring, according to officials involved.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation had not been announced publicly, said investigators were worried that senior government officials had been steering huge oil-trading contracts to favored companies.

'A certain color of stone worn a certain way is just one of the dozens of superficial clues - like dialect, style of beard, how you pin a veil - that indicate whether you're Sunni or Shiite. These little signs increasingly mean the difference between life and death at the terrifying illegal checkpoints that surround the districts of Baghdad. In a surprise reversal, Shiite militiamen have usurped Sunni insurgents as the most feared force on the streets.

When I was last here in 2005, it took guts and guards, but you could still travel to most anywhere in the capital. Now, there are few true neighborhoods left. They're mostly just cordoned-off enclaves in various stages of deadly sectarian cleansing. Moving trucks piled high with furniture weave through traffic, evidence of an unfolding humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced Iraqis.

The Sunni-Shiite segregation is the starkest change of all, but nowadays it seems like everything in Baghdad hinges on separation. There's the Green Zone to guard the unpopular government from its suffering people, U.S. military bases where Iraqis aren't allowed to work, armored sedans to shield VIPs from the explosions that kill workaday civilians, different TV channels and newspapers for each political party, an unwritten citywide dress code to keep women from the eyes of men.

Attempts to bring people together have failed miserably. I attended a symposium called "How to Solve Iraq's Militia Problem," but the main militia representatives never showed up and those of us who did were stuck inside for hours while a robot disabled a car bomb in the parking lot. '

'As the president contemplates sending even more U.S. forces into the Iraqi sinkhole, he should consider not only the thousands of fatalities, the tens of thousands of casualties and the hundreds of billions of dollars already lost. He must also weigh the opportunity cost of taking his national security barons off all the other critical problems they should be addressing -- problems whose windows of opportunity are slamming shut, unheard over the wail of Baghdad sirens.

Clarke lays out a number of issues that he feels are pressing ones in need of attention by this Administration. I think he misses a few -- China, repairing our diplomatic ties, and several others, but it's a good list for contemplation this morning -- and an issue we would do well to think about in terms of the opportunity costs of the Bush Administration's continued delay on any real decisionmaking and the chaos that rushes in to fill that void in the absence of leadership.

Over the last few weeks, William Arkin has talked quite a bit about the tensions between the overextension of the military, the decisions made (or not made as yet) by the Bush Administration, and the ways in which so many other balls have been dropped. From his December 20th post:

...And America needs a larger non-military. Whether it's Iraq, drugs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, hurricane Katrina, or the increase in domestic crime it is so clear only Washington can't see that our tendency to see a military solution to everything is not only wrong but has had profound negative effects.

Indeed we do. But creating yet another "Study Group" of intellectual generals isn't going to reset Iraq. As I've said many times here, the Iraqis themselves have got to want the victory there as much as we do. And right now, the majority doesn't seem to want anything close to what we want.

So we'll have a "surge," we'll have a plan to increase end strength -- we'll have new leadership at the Pentagon and in Iraq. We'll have everything except the clarity to see that what we have and want isn't enough. The Pentagon will be left holding the bag, the people of Baghdad and New Orleans will equally suffer.

Please also take some time to go through two of Arkin's other columns -- from Dec. 21st and from Dec. 22nd -- talking about the hands of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney on the crafting of the public relations messaging for the Administration and the heavy hand of Dick Cheney, still. The neocons, including George Bush, refuse to look their missteps in the eye -- and it is other people's children who must pay the price for their cowardice.'

'The Military Times poll finds that only 35 percent of respondents approve of Bush's handling of the war -- down from 63 percent two years ago -- while 42% disapprove of it. From the Army Times' article today on the poll:
The American military -- once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war -- has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war -- in 2004 -- 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush's handling of the war. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.'

should have been...

It may very well mean the difference to them between getting out alive and in one piece, or NOT making it home AT ALL.

"As much as the social conservatives might not like to hear it, there will be a time when your grandchildren say: 'What was the argument with gay marriage? Who cares?'"

-- Outgoing openly gay GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe, quoted in the Tuscon Citizen blasting the GOP for what he sees as its politically disastrous focus on issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage.

SO HOW ABOUT IT, CHRIS? WAPO GONNA COVER THIS?

'As reported below, the Military Times has just released its annual poll of active duty troops, and its findings are striking. Among other things, it finds that only 38 percent think there should be more troops in Iraq than there already are. So here's the question. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates held a sit-down with a dozen troops who all just happened to favor bringing more troops in Iraq. The opinions of this handful of troops earned extensive coverage from CNN, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters. And yet, as best as I can determine, none of these same news orgs today mentioned the Military Times poll, even though it came out yesterday. Why not? Now that we have poll of the actual attitudes of thousands of troops towards a "surge," when will the media cover it?'

And you know why they don't support it? For one thing, it won't do anything--it's just a way to postpone admitting defeat. For another -- the troops know it won't be new people sent in, because there aren't any. It will be THEM -- held there against their will, far after they were scheduled to go home, stop-lossed and called back and extended. It may very well mean the difference to them between getting out alive and in one piece or making it home safe.

All of these young lives wasted just so bush won't be embarrassed. The man is a perfect example of the banality of evil.

'He wasn't funny at all, it actually gave me a chill to think that elements like him in the Republican Party may actually get into positions of power and continue to poison our politics.'

Well have to agree with you there, duh! my friend. But you know people like him already ARE in power--and that's why the US is sinking in debt and unable or unwilling to address any of the major challenges we face today.

And frankly, as far as Naderites are concerned -- I used to support him too. But I stopped when he became nothing but a spoiler. In the end he was far more angry at Dems than Repugs and pretty much turned the Green Party into a useful tool for rightwingers. Sad.

I canvassed in 2000 for Gore and was really surprised by the level of hostility I encountered from Naderites. So don't be too surprised if they don't seem logical to you--they'r not.

Quoting Amy: "You guys - where is your sense of humor... Here is why William was funny.

In some posts, William said things that sounded practically illiterate, like "We will SMEEAAR Barack HUSSEIN Obama." (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog???...
William was funny because he was having fun himself."

Amy - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein probably had funny moments and
were able to construct logical arguments. "Does that excuse their other actions?" shouldn't even have to be said. But, your rationalizing make us have to say that.

As to "Barack HUSSEIN Obama. (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog?"

William wasn't doing a comedy schtick. He was simply parroting Fox News and other wingnuts already trying to effect the subtle smear. And he actualy admitted to that, stating that he believed it was acceptable. But, you missed that somehow.

The sad part is that he actually believes that crap.

Lady, you need to learn how to read for content. Your reaction to William and the subesquent rationalizing only enable racists and bigots like him.

Racism and bigotry are never excusable.

He wasn't funny at all, it actually gave me a chill to think that elements like him in the Republican Party may actually get into positions of power and continue to poison our politics.

US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.

US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.

JOHN EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT STUFF (AND ALSO THE RIGHT $TUFF) TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. HAVING LIVED IN LOS ANGELES FOR 25 YEARS, I'VE LEARNED THAT IT'S ALWAYS IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE IN POLITICS... AND THAT EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO POLITICS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH RELIGION, THE ULTIMATE AND MOST RADICAL FORM OF POLITICS.

BEING EVER SO BLUNT AND FORTHRIGHT, EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT IMAGE. ASIDE FROM BEING AN INTELLIGENT AND WELL EDUCATED FELLOW, MR. EDWARDS IS YOUNG AND WHITE AND RICH. A LOT OF FOLKS WANT TO BE HIM (HAVE HIS IMAGE).

EDWARDS ALSO CARRIES THE "WHOLE-SUM" IMAGE OF "FAMILY MAN"... AND HE'S A SOUTHERNER. NOT ONLY CAN HE WIN A PLURALITY OF VOTERS IN THE NORTH AND THE WEST... BUT ALSO DOWN IN DIXIE, THE LAND OF SIMPLISTIC, MYOPIC AND MEAN-ESPIRITED SHEEP (THE EWE FOLKS). SORRY, BUTT OLD COYOTE KNOSE... THERE'S NOTHING QUITE AS VICIOUS AS SOUTHERN KKKULTURE... OR AS MEAN-ESPIRITED AS SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY. YEAH... BEEN THERE; SUFFERED THAT.

$ENATOR HILLARY CLINTON CAN'T WIN IN A NATIONAL "$ELL-ECKTION." SHE'S BIG IN NEW YORK AND IN A FEW OTHER SMALL DEMOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT SHE CARRIES TOO MUCH BUBB-AHH BAGGAGE TO CARRY HER CROSS ACROSS A NATIONAL $TAGE. FORGET OBAMA; HIS MIDDLE NAME (HUSSEIN) WILL SINK HIS $HIP, HOWEVER HE'D BE A BIG DRAW IF HE WAS ON THE EDWARDS TICKET.

FINALLY... GORE COULD WIN IN 2008. HE KNOWS THE ROPES AND HE'S PAID HIS DUES.

JOHN EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT STUFF (AND ALSO THE RIGHT $TUFF) TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. HAVING LIVED IN LOS ANGELES FOR 25 YEARS, I'VE LEARNED THAT IT'S ALWAYS IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE IN POLITICS... AND THAT EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO POLITICS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH RELIGION, THE ULTIMATE AND MOST RADICAL FORM OF POLITICS.

BEING EVER SO BLUNT AND FORTHRIGHT, EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT IMAGE. ASIDE FROM BEING AN INTELLIGENT AND WELL EDUCATED FELLOW, MR. EDWARDS IS YOUNG AND WHITE AND RICH. A LOT OF FOLKS WANT TO BE HIM (HAVE HIS IMAGE).

EDWARDS ALSO CARRIES THE "WHOLE-SUM" IMAGE OF "FAMILY MAN"... AND HE'S A SOUTHERNER. NOT ONLY CAN HE WIN A PLURALITY OF VOTERS IN THE NORTH AND THE WEST... BUT ALSO DOWN IN DIXIE, THE LAND OF SIMPLISTIC, MYOPIC AND MEAN-ESPIRITED SHEEP (THE EWE FOLKS). SORRY, BUTT OLD COYOTE KNOSE... THERE'S NOTHING QUITE AS VICIOUS AS SOUTHERN KKKULTURE... OR AS MEAN-ESPIRITED AS SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY. YEAH... BEEN THERE; SUFFERED THAT.

$ENATOR HILLARY CLINTON CAN'T WIN IN A NATIONAL "$ELL-ECKTION." SHE'S BIG IN NEW YORK AND IN A FEW OTHER SMALL DEMOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT SHE CARRIES TOO MUCH BUBB-AHH BAGGAGE TO CARRY HER CROSS ACROSS A NATIONAL $TAGE. FORGET OBAMA; HIS MIDDLE NAME (HUSSEIN) WILL SINK HIS $HIP, HOWEVER HE'D BE A BIG DRAW IF HE WAS ON THE EDWARDS TICKET.

FINALLY... GORE COULD WIN IN 2008. HE KNOWS THE ROPES AND HE'S PAID HIS DUES.

I can't resist throwing in my 2 cents here.

One item I find amusing is the fact that no one commented on the global warming poll thing.

If "34% disagreed...." on an item does that mean 66% "agreed"?
Were there any "no opinions"

Did nobody pick up on that?

Go back and reread that thing and turn the numbers around and get the "facts" that the poster likes to believe in.

Unfortunately, on the issue of Iraq, Edwards had neither experience nor good judgement, having supported the Iraq War until earlier this year when polls revealed to Edwards that an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the war. So Edwards finally decided to oppose the war, too. (I'm curious, what did John Edwards not know about the Iraq War two years ago, that he just learned earlier this year, except for the new poll numbers?)

While Edwards has neither the experience or good judgement to be president, Barack Obama has both.

Barack Obama strongly opposed the Iraq War from the outset. Obama strikes everyone as having the good judgement of a veteran statesman. Maureen Dowd recently wrote about how Obama has enough experience to be president. It's difficult to picture Obama on top of a tank for a photo op, like Michael Dukakis. It's difficult to picture him sighing in a debate when his opponent gives a lame answer, like Gore did against W. It's difficult to see him flub a joke about W, like Kerry did.

And it's difficult to see him wrong on Iraq - for almost three years - like Edwards was.

Edwards: tomorrow's mistakes can be avoided today [by voting for Obama]. (For those who missed it, that's a play on Edwards' theme which is "tomorrow begins today.")

more Wilipedia:

Troll (Internet)

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Usage

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem. [citation needed]
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. [citation needed]

Amy, that's called trolling. It's not funny; it's disruptive, and makes it a lot harder to have actual discussions here. This is supposed to be a serious blog, not the Fark forums.

And a note to the guy who makes every post with a different name: Your name appears at the end of the post. It might look fine when you're typing, but in the actual post you seem to start midsentence. It's confusing.

like stupid people, I especially dislike stupid dishonest people that prey upon children check zouks hard drive.

poofins of elevator gas..

IN GENERAL, Appeal to emotion

is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the listener's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking

Related fallacies
Other types of fallacies may also overlap with or constitute an appeal to emotion, including:

Ad hominem attacks
Guilt by association
Misleading vividness
Slippery slope
Truthiness
Two wrongs make a right (if arguing for revenge)
Example: "For the children"

External links
About.com: Appeals to emotion index
Fallacy Files: Emotional appeal
Nizkor: Appeal to emotion
Emotion Theory in Advertising
Fallacies of relevance
Accident • Ad nauseam • Base rate fallacy • Chronological snobbery • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • False compromise • Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Two wrongs make a right

Appeals to emotion
Fear • Flattery • Novelty • Queerness • Pity • Ridicule • Spite • Wishful thinking

Genetic fallacies
Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to motive • Appeal to tradition • Argumentum ad crumenam • Argumentum ad lazarum • Association fallacy • Ipsedixitism • Poisoning the well • Reductio ad Hitlerum

know that George W. Bush was to be investigated by the SEC

over insider trading before he was governor of Texas dont you?

they never followed through.

you do know that the president of Chile was killed after the CIA was warned, while he was visting Washington DC while George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA....

and you did know that Porter Goss was a yale classmate of George W. Bush, John Negroponte and Paul Wolfowitz the author of Project for a New American Century and current WORLD BANK President right?

g o o g l e Negroponte and Honduras if you want to really understand who the terrorists are....

Congressional funding for Al Queada? It is a fact, CIA trained? it is a fact...

and now all of a sudden they are against us?

not likely .

You guys - where is your sense of humor... Here is why William was funny.

In some posts, William said things that sounded practically illiterate, like "We will SMEEAAR Barack HUSSEIN Obama." (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog??? Can we really take this seriously?)

In other posts, William constructed literate and thought-provoking arguments.

In yet other posts, William successfully baited a lot of earnest Dems.

William was funny because he was having fun himself.

And notice... If the best you can come up with to counter my arguments against Edwards is that I have a dull sense of humor, Edwards is REALLY not doing so well.

OK, I am signing off. I have burned up way too much time recently on this blog... Time for cold turkey full stop in the New Year. Bye and it's been fun.

good catch...

it has to do with serendipity and putting things together in such a way as to effect a change.

believe it or not telling the truth affects a stronger change than lying...

that is if you are trying to stand up to a lie...

you see, the truth resonates, a lie needs to be supported

it is a structurally unsound construct...

that is why such a simple person as myself can effect such great change....

I throw rocks at glass houses, big rocks.

.

I have noticed the phenomonen the anon poster alluded to... the absolutely rabid, drooling, venomous rage over muslims the wingers have fallen into since the elections. I guess losing really snapped whatever tenuous connection they had with reality.

It's truly amazing how the kind of things they are saying about Muslims are just EXACTLY -- often in the same words -- what Hitler and many of hte German people were saying about Jews, right before they started slaughtering them.

These are truly sick, demented and evil people.

' The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon on a daily propaganda organ, the Washington Times, according to a 21-year veteran of the newspaper.... Parry goes on to describe Sun Myung Moon as a nexus connecting organized crime, including drug trafficking, with prominent right-wing American politicians.'

-- I thought everybody knew this already.

Amen, Lark!

Amy still misses the substantive points.

'Perhaps the Frankensteinian bolts in their necks are fastened too tight. Perhaps the bunker walls of their converted basements are closing in, inducing paranoia and frantic unease. I don't pretend to know what group psychosis seems to have taken possession of the right blogosphere. What I do know is that in this most festive of seasons, when you would think tidings of comfort and joy would provide momentary distraction from the vacuity of their paltry lives, the Free-Range Chickenhawks instead have gone full metal freaking bonkers with rage, loathing, inane pranks, and fantasies of violent retribution. Steve Gilliard brings us a lurid effusion by a delusions-of-grandeur dork named Emperor Misha I who blogs about recent events in Somalia as if he were gargling with blood. Gavin M. at Sadly, No! provides a handy rundown of this virulent spaz-out on the right, whose culprits include those familiar slow-footed mammals over at Little Green Footballs.

That's what it's like where the grubworms gather. But the vistas are no prettier in the upper reaches of the right blogosphere. The rhetoric is fancier, the sentences longer and more fully equipped with subordinate clauses, but the electrical wiring is just as frayed.

Ponder the intellectual procession of one that is Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road.Porretto has enough unctuous piety oozing out of him to mold a new set of wax lips, and he has none of the true curmudgeon's gift for tart, aphoristic expression; he's a wordy bastard.

As represented by his latest address to the congregation, titled with his customary modesty The Imperative of the Age. In this oracular exercise it would appear that the election of Keith Ellison, an American Muslim, to Congress, has incited an uprising of dark forebodings in Porretto's reptilian brain that has him prepping for a remake of Red Dawn. I won't try to escort you like Virgil through the tortuous coils of his "thought processes," but instead deposit you at the spot where he distributes his curbside advice:
Your Curmudgeon exhorts you all:

Learn all you can about Islam. Read the Qur'an, and at least one of the authoritative hadith. Make use of the learning of Robert Spencer, Dainel Pipes, Bat Ye'or, and Steven Emerson. Familiarize yourselves with the travails of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and other apostates from Islam. Familiarize yourselves with the lives of Muslims in Islamic states, and with the sufferings of non-Muslims in lands such as Pakistan and the Philippines where Muslims are a militant force. Don't allow the just-another-harmless-Abrahamic-faith propaganda to condition you to inertia.

Arm yourselves as heavily as you can. If yours is a right-to-carry state, get a concealed-carry permit and buy a handgun. No matter where you live, stock at least one long arm for every adult member of your household. Instruct your children in firearms discipline, and invite them along when you go to the range. Try to interest your neighbors as well; shooting sports are a way to build both the sense of community and the sense of obligation to community defense. And make sure everyone you know is familiar with the citizen's obligation, as a militiaman, to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

--For some reason I picture Lucy, Ricky, Fred, and Ethel patrolling their apartment with loaded guns, convinced their downstairs neighbors are spies. That ended badly, if unfatally, and I fear how many innocent Muslims may end up getting shot due to the overzealous vigilance of gun-toting nuts unable to accept a Muslim being elected to Congress.

While Perretto guards the backyard, practicing his marksmanship on pesky squirrels, his blog buddy The American Digester entertains a more ambitious global vision of Muslim removal. Just in time for Christmas, he reprinted his speculative essay "Toying with Genocide," wherein he gives fair warning to the West and its enemies that if billions of Muslims refuse to listen to reason and mend their ways, it'll be their funeral served on a platter:

'ONCE A SOCIETY BECOMES CONVINCED that it is harboring something within it that is intractably "Other," and that the "Other" clearly and without quarter means to destroy it, that society looks for an answer that preserves it at the expense of the "Other."
The classic answer is, in historic terms and sooner rather than later, genocide.

Fortunately, there's a way to administer genocide without having to get your hands messy and your clothes mussed. No need to wade into cities or invade ports when you've got so many ballistic missile submarines at your disposal.
The cold fact is that should America or the West feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the Muslim centers of mass; cities in the middle-east or elsewhere where Muslims are the majority of the population. This is not some "Strangelovian" fantasy, but a very real option on the table of realpolitik. If you think our ballistic missile submarines don't carry the targeting information for these cities, think again.'

--It'll be a toasty time in ol' Tehran tonight, if the Western powers have the courage to dream big.
Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."

And the American Digester is nothing if not a can-do kinda guy. As is Arthur Herman, whose Commentary article "Getting Serious About Iran--a Military Option" (muchos gracias, Glenn Greenwald) serves as a tasty sidedish to "Toying with Genocide." And Michael Ledeen, for whom military muscle can't be applied against Iran fast enough. When I read these civilized roughnecks, I picture their invisible tails lashing at the legs of their chairs, like the character in Norman Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance. The tougher they pretend to be, the harder their tails lash, impotently beating against the bars of their cages. '

"U.S. soldier reacts to Saddam Hussein's execution: "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?" -- Soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq. "First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"

'because William thinks Duke is a wacko nutjob.' --that's the official winger line now, because Duke has criticized Israel. They were fine with Duke when he was a racist only on the subject of blacks and latinos.

And William IS a racist -- just about everything he said indicated that. He's a blood brother of Duke. And I didn't find him 'funny' in any way. Just loud, obnoxious and ill-informed.

'Clinton ripped our nation apart on corruption, and cronyism, and bribes.'

Umm, sorry, you must be c onfused. That would be bush you are speaking about. Who after all, was such a good buddy of Jack Abramoff? Ralph Reed? Duke Cunningham? Bob Ney?There are expoentially more criminals in this administration than probably any other in history. Get over it.

and sorry again, condi is ALREADY in the gutter with bush.

Just observing a statement in here, that Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton were trusted advisers to their husbands. Well, most people sort of expect that, but the final decision is made by the President.
Eleanor was asked to run for president in 1948, the party would have handed it to her since Truman was down to 29% support at that time.
Eleanor had years and years of being the eyes and ears for FDR, but again, the final decisions were made by him, not her.
Hillary and her National Healthcare plan led to the 54 seat loss in 1994, plus the increased taxes.
Now, if Condi is equal to Eleanor or Hillary in being able to give advice to a President, that should be a PLUS. Laura Bush has stated that she is a person who comforts her husband, not a woman who tries to tell him what to do. That is a PLUS.
In the polls I have seen, both Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice are favored to be considered for president, another PLUS.
I belong to no political party, I just vote for who I think will do a good job.
Today we understand Ford was correct to pardon Nixon. Why? Look at the mess the impeachment of Clinton made? Clinton ripped our nation apart on corruption, and cronyism, and bribes.
That is why I voted for Bush in 2000. To get away from the Clinton garbage.
But I voted for Kerry in 2004, to give him a chance to fix the mistakes of Bush.
But I refuse to blame Condi to each and every problem created by Bush. Only the die-hard Democrats who hate the President would try to drag Condi down into the gutter with Bush.
I like Laura, and I like Condi. But I do not like Bush. Is that ok?

Maybe people are finally sick of theocrats meddling in their personal lives and the education of their children:

'Against that backdrop, Kline made headlines with his assault on abortion clinics while the Board of Education drew worldwide attention -- and some ridicule -- for its endorsement of challenges to firmly established Darwinian theory.

More recently, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a social conservative thought to be considering running for president, drew notice for holding up a federal judicial nomination when he learned the nominee had attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. He said he wanted to know whether she had presided.

Kansas Democrats and moderate Republicans fought back this year. In the midterm elections, Democrat Nancy Boyda stunned five-term incumbent Ryun, while moderate Republicans Morrison and his friend Mark Parkinson, a former chairman of the Kansas GOP, changed parties and easily won statewide office.

Morrison outpolled Kline 65 percent to 35 percent in the traditionally Republican county

The NYT gets a scoop on an investigation into the director of a multibillion-dollar Interior Department oil-trading program, who is suspected of being a paid consultant to oil companies while also determining which of those companies get government contracts. Cozy relations with Big Oil in the Bush administration?

Amy, I understand. Thank you for clarification. I don't agree or disagree about Edwards yet -- I haven't really seen enuogh. However, I think the staff that he has chosen speaks very highly for him. The campaigns they've been involved in have been competent and most of all, clean.

Wheras John McCain, for instance, has picked some of the filthiest liars and swiftboaters and dirty-tricks operatives in the business, bush's personal circle. He even stooped so low as to hire the very people who smeared his own family. You can see there is nothing he will not do, he's that megalomaniacal and dangerous. Another bush.

I think we wil face a stark choice -- most likely the republican candidate will be another religious chickenhawk, whose only vision for the future is government intrusion in our private lives and endless war.

But if we are lucky, on the Dem side we will get someone like Edwards or Gore -- who understand that the most important issues facing us are going to be energy dependence and the gigantic disclocation of globalization that we are just starting to feel.

Our manufacturing sector is collapsing, our middle class jobs are being outsourced overseas, 40% of us receive no health care. The only people who are not losing ground in this country today are the wealthiest 5% or so. And as bush continues to spend the Social Security surplus, fewer companies offer pensions, and the cost of health care and college continues to rise, things are only going to get worse.

If a candidate can manage to engage these issues, to propose serious solution, I think whoever it is, D or R, can win. Sure terrorism is a big deal, but we have to stop cowering under our beds, and get on with it. We have to create our own future, because right now, partly through the suppression of science by theocrats defunding of research, we are losing our competitives and our tradtional edge on science and technology and falling behind other countries.

William said David Duke was a wacko nutjob or something like that, I forget exactly what. So he probably isn't a junior David Duke. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called Duke a wacko nutjob or whatever.

It would take too long to go back in the archives and find whatever obviously funny thing made me smile. But whatever it was, it can't have been a mini-David-Duke, because William thinks Duke is a wacko nutjob.

Robert*, you put your finger on something important when you mentioned Edwards-speak plagiarizing Obama. But I am not too worried about this sort of thing.

Given enough time, Americans can always tell the difference between a genuine article and a knockoff. If it is taking too long and the primary is coming up, Jon Stewart - plus whatever cool new media will have evolved in 2008 - will help Americans notice before it is too late.

In the long term, plagiarizing Obama just hurts the Edwards campaign. If Edwards instead identifies what makes him unique, and finds a way to work those unique qualities into a viable candidacy, he will be better off.

Needless to say, ethical behavior from all candidates would benefit the whole Democratic party as well.

Amy, Weren't you the one who encouraged William to keep posting because you thought his comments were "funny"?

If you read his comments closely you could see that he is nothing but a junior version of David Duke. That's funny?

Hi vmi98mom,
Nice post. You mentioned that Edwards "learned from his last venture in National politics that he can only be successful if he honors those beliefs".

I kind of raised my eyebrows because that makes it sound like the reason he lost in 2004 is that he failed to honor his beliefs, but I may have missed the point.

Anyway, can you tell us some more about the differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards?

2004 Edwards is the one familiar to most Americans, and also to me.

Based on an earlier thread (a Line of all the Democratic likely candidates) before Edwards officially began his campaign, I've concluded that most Fix contributors are talking about 2004 Edwards. So please clue us in.

I am skeptical that the leopard does not really change his spots. But to be fair, it is always possible that Edwards may have had some sort of personal awakening, and since it is a long time until the primary, he has plenty of time to tell us about it.

Edwards' Two Americas theme is not terribly original and seems cynically calculated to appeal to the more liberal voters in the primaries. While I'd like to see another version of LBJ's War on Poverty, I don't believe that will sell very well to swing voters in a general election. Are we going to see Edwards version 3.0 if/when he is in the general election, and how believable will it seem to change one's public persona on the drop of a dime.

Drindl,

Your comment that I "sure do like to criticize [my] fellow Dems" is worth a serious response. Here goes.

There is a big difference between criticizing a candidate for political office and criticizing some blogger.

When someone puts their name out there as a candidate or potential candidate, as Edwards and Clinton have done, they are inviting criticism. In fact, it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to express perceived weaknesses in candidates and potential candidates.

Our responsibility holds in the primary season just as much as it does in the general. In fact, drawing attention to perceived weaknesses of Democratic candidates during the primary season benefits, not harms, the Democratic party.

I genuinely believe that John Edwards would be a poor President. There is nothing wrong with my saying so.

That's very different from posting criticisms of another blogger. We are all putting our opinions out there and I'm sure most of us are speaking from the heart. I feel that it is helpful, not harmful, to hear a wide variety of opinions.

That's why, if you look back on my posts, you will see plenty of criticisms of candidates, but no criticisms of bloggers themselves.

I've criticized a few bloggers' POSTS (for example, in the second post today, I quoted MikeB in full, and my language suggested that I did not think his post was very helpful), but only when I felt that those posts exemplified the worst aspects of the characters of the candidates under discussion.

That's different from calling bloggers evil swine with no morals, or twits who suffer from intellectual bankruptcy (see MikeB).

Oh. The other point is that although I've never voted for a Republican candidate, I've also never registered Democrat. I will register Democrat this time, because I want to vote for Obama in the primary. But right now I'm still on the record as Independent. So don't worry about all that fellow Dem stuff. I was not a core Dem to begin with.

OK last thing - nobody else responded to your concern about Edwards' Two Americas leaving out the middle class, but I would like to comment that I agree.

the reason others have reacted as they have to your posts is that they are invariably filled with small-minded sniping. i do not care whether you or anyone else agrees with me or not, but i take offense to (some) positions with which i agree being described as "moonbat," among other things. if you disagree with someone's position, you have to respectfully address the points that are being made, using the language of an intelligent adult and taking care to address the issue rather than the person or philosophy behind it. also, you can use sources that a few more of us have heard of and respect - note that i say nothing about the two you cited today, because i've never heard of them... but one poster did mention that the "global warming" article you linked to does NOT in fact represent a serious dissent within the scientific community.
whether you agree or not, when making a point you are responsible not only for how it is made, but also for how you think it will be received. conversation is a 2 way street - should be, at least - and if you step off the curb without looking both ways, people get hurt.
i suspect that you will either ignore this or find a way to sneer at it, perhaps by calling me a "moonbat." whatever floats your boat - but i hope you will consider, deep down in your Grinchy heart, the value that there still is in sincere and respectful dialogue. as the chief house right-winger, you have a great opportunity to set a good example and turn this thread into something which will contribute to peoples' understanding rather than degenerate into name-calling.

Unlike Amy, who seems to choose her candidate by gut feeling, I have met both Barak Obama and John Edwards (also Biden, Richardson, Clark and Clinton). Both are smart and charismatic. Both would make good candidates. I think both are genuine in their beliefs, but I think that Edwards has the "fire in the belly" needed to go the distance, learned from his last venture in National politics that he can only be successful if he honors those beliefs, and has demonstrated life experience and has a record of how he would handle crisis that Obama does not have.

For the Biden supporters, Joe is a nice enough guy and is very well-versed on foreign policy, especially on the ME. He has spoke at some of our local breakfasts and is very charming, but he suffers from foot-in mouth-disease and his past comments will haunt him. Richardson is VERY smart, but is a better behind-the-scenes player than in front of the crowd. HRC is not WJC. She comes across as condescending in person and as wishy washy to the public. Clark is nice enough, but has no vision.

So my money is on Edwards.

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser by some. But as far as I can see, she just agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser by some. But as far as I can see, she just agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser. But as far as I can see, she agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

Thank you Amy.

I was away from my computer most of the day and didn't get a chance to respond to MikeB.

As noted by another reader, another reason I question John Edwards is that he recently stole basically verbatim Barack Obama's response to the "inexperience" question - without attribution. This is the type of blatant plagiarism of another politician's speech that destroyed Biden's campaign for president many years ago.

The following is an exchange I had on the last thread with an intelligent, reasonable supporter of John Edwards regarding race baiting. Though MikeB wasn't mentioned by name, it's who I was thinking of:

Robert, thanks for that. I didn't realise NC Governor was blue.

Re "Watch this in the coming year: I believe it will be certain fellow Democrats - who are rooting for another candidate - who play the race card on Obama more than Republicans."

I hope you're wrong, but it may well occur. Under the respectable banner of "el