Greedy and grabby, out there with it, yes. I see London, I see France, I see Hillary's underpants. They look just like Monica's.

Sorry, Bill, you did not get my vote, and guaranteed, Hillary will not get my vote.

I do not want a famous cuckolded but virtuous faithful wife for President--it does NOT qualify with Bill Clinton for Secretary of State. NO THANKS. Her ability to reach for a brass ring that does not belong in her grasp is due entirely to greedy reaching.

VOTES can pre-empt the GREED. Money in the hands of the greedy grabs the attention of the greedy, but the MAJORITY is NOT THERE.

I expect the ballot box to PROVE that.

Of 50 states, 26 states allow party choice/affiliation to be indicated if so desired. In those 26 states, the Republicans show 25.5M registered voters; Democrats show 35.5M registered voters; and OTHER claims the preference (!) that is there ARE people who CHOOSE not to identify with EITHER of the TWO supposed major parties...and the numbers for 26 states registered voters is 20.5M. They are not pursuaded. I am one of them. I do not OWE my vote to a greedy powermonger as necessary to refuse the WORST of the GREEDY offering for Presidential Candidacy! NO THANKS. We still own the ballot box.

I demonstrated against the Bombing of Yugoslavia, and would much prefer WORLD ORDER and SANITY.

The Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt POWERMONGERS. Greedy, grabby assuming they have it all wrapped up. And, corporate media likes it.

Religion PRACTICED respects all human beings as children of God. How they should behave is different beliefs, but fundamental respect for nature and other people is a common theme throughout. Of course the CREATOR wanted his natural law of human relations "observed."

The majority not the greedy elite rules in the theory of the United States Constitution.

The Republican Agenda is not the will of the majority. It is the will of the greedy and corrupt.

Democracy is, by definition THE CHALLENGE to the status quo when it needs to be overturned. It is the CONSTITUTION that provides elections and voting to prove the MAJORITY RULES.

The Republicans do not own this country. The people do.

For those who find the registration profile of the 26 states interesting, you might find MY STATE ("claimed" SAFE, it is NOT, it is OPEN TO THE BEST AS THE RULE) Massachusetts, is 49% "Unaffiliated" and not the two parties (35% is Democrat and 13.5% Republican and 3% minor parties); and New Jersey shows even less affection for the two major parties: 59% are OTHER. A clear minority in New Jersey were willing to call themselves either Republican or Democrats when registering to vote.

Sure, I know they might simply be new voters, and undecided, and might indeed be some of the same major party greed that has shown in the powermongering and abandonment of proper priorities and rules and principles (notably the partisan chairmanship of the Commission on Presidential Debates was grabbed out of the non-partisan hands of the League of Women voters, and claimed by the Chairs of the republicans and democrats)--oh yes, MORE greedy powermongering has been reported...NPR...Republicans grabbed the CEO positions - two top positions when Congress didn't get the Republican backed request to cut the funding, they MOVED IN ON NPR...according to an online posted article from "The Record" for the Catskill area of New York...the writer was clearly horrified. I was too, as if a death in the family had occurred. I couldn't BELIEVE they were THAT brazenly powermongers INTENT to ruin the MAJORITY RULE and proper perspective and GOD KNOWS what else.

God is waiting for PEOPLE to behave...all religions offer the instruction of proper faith is demonstrated in behaviors that respect human relationships and VALUES of integrity and self-respect.

Free will comes with free choice.

We are still FREE to VOTE for OUR ACTUAL CHOICES not greedy powermongers in our faces, brazenly.

Several posts ask the question "Why my strong support for Hillary?". She agrees with me on the issues that are most important to me. Health care, Education, Strong Defence [Domestic and International], Childrens Issues, Fair Labor Laws, Anti-Discrimination, and MOST Important [Allow each and everyone to live up to our God given talent.], Help those in need and not the few that need it least of all. I can't see how any normal person could disagree with any of the reasons I've stated.

In the struggle for the Democratic nomination, only Obama willescape criticism. Clinton expects that he will self destruct as others attack him. I do not think obama will self destruct and I do think as he mounts a credible campaign Hillarys strength will erode. This may well mean Obama gets the nomination. In the general election there will be two or three possible republican nominees who can defeat Obama and the only uestion is whether or not the republicans nominate one of them.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely right about her candidacy: she is the strongest, most divisive and polarizing candidate among the Democratic candidates bar none. The Republicans must be licking their chops in the event that Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic party nominee.

drindl said, "Really -- why is Hillary not making a statement about the inappropriateness of a foreign politician trashing the Democratic party? This Australian chickenhawk, another bushpoodle, has no business making judgements about our party or our country."

He has every right to make judgements about the U.S. The fact that said judgements are utter idiocy is irrelevant.

Otherwise you have no right to make judgements about Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. You are not a citizen of those places so it is none of your business, right?

lylepink - Better get used to it.

The Republicans I know kind of chuckle when they talk about Sen. Clinton as the candidate. They see John Kerry times 10; because they get to vent on both her and Bubba again. Want me to forward some of the creative photo shop e-mails about her already circulating?

The Democrats I know are split, just as the postings on The Fix would indicate. But remember, her high "negative" ratings in the polls are due to intangibles that she's not having much success in getting over right now. Repeating my comment from before - she seems more like a lawyer right now, than a leader.

The biggest thing in her favor is that there's still so much time left. Everything can change.

lyle: "I have given so many reasons for my support of Hillary and you appear to see and hear only what you agree with. I have said it before and will say again, IMO, Barack Obama has ZERO chance of being elected in 08."

-this is actually the only reason i have seen you give. look, i'm not trying to pick a fight, i just do honestly believe that her candidacy is all about ego and her last name, and those factors seem contrary to the idea of democracy. and from what i've seen, she is not at this point the only democrat who could beat mccain or giuliai. and you didn't address my discomfort with the monopoly on the oval office by 2 families. how will you feel when jeb bush runs in 2012?
and robert - in re: "Senator Clinton remains the only candidate with the political reach and the philosophy of inclusion to make this happen." - i think all that it's safe to say is that she is the best-known candidate in all 50 states. there is still - as someone mentioned, forget who - a huge amount of dislike for her which doesn't seem to be getting any less. whether or not it's deserved is irrelevant. do we really want another "divider" after 8 years of bush?
and both of you, before you cuss me out, i will pull the lever for her if she is the one in november 08 with the D next to her name... but not before, cuz i do not think she is the strongest, nor the smartest, nor the most honest candidate out there... nor the one with the best ideas. i am willing to be proven wrong, but it hasn't happened yet.

Hillary and Bill boy did I love the 90's a great time to invest and make money. Not like today. The republicans don't want Hillary because they hated Bill and they hated that people got a good deal not a raw deal.

I like all of the people running on the Demo side because frankly they are not Republicans.

This article's reference to Howard Dean's Fifty State strategy is very astute.

The Democrats have to be competitive in all fifty states. It is essential that down ballot candidates receive enough help from the Presidential ticket to assure that Democrats are elected in state-wide in every state and to state legislatures in larger numbers than they now possess.

Senator Clinton remains the only candidate with the political reach and the philosophy of inclusion to make this happen.

It is time for the Democrats to spell out their message for the future: the Democratic message for the future is OPPORTUNITY for all.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy and Presidency is the embodiment of the smashing of barriers that limit opportunity for the majority of America's citizens.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

... good comparison to the right-wing-conspiracy line, muD.

Now, we actually know that there WAS something of a right-wing conspiracy. If only she had had the good taste/common sense to use communication terms that worked, maybe she could have alerted it to us earlier and this country would be healthier now.

Instead she used a phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" that made her sound like a fool. IMO the phrasing she is using to describe her invincibility is just as ineffective. It signals she would not be a very skilled communicator once in office either.

"Golgi,

you seem disappointed that she is comfortable speaking the truth herself rather than hiring shills in the audience to say it for her..."

well's comment refers, I think, to my question about whether it is typical or abnormal for a candidate to say about themselves that they are the candidate the opposing party is afraid of.

I suggested that Hillary's assertion, that she is the candidate the Republicans are afraid of, might signal a certain tone-deafness, as to tasteful campaigning.

I wasn't talking about "hired shills" being the more appropriate ones to observe who is afraid of whom. I was talking about normal people, like those who *presumably* post on this blog.

Yes, it's admirable when a candidate speaks a truth that nobody else is brave enough to voice.

But that's not the situation here.

Hillary is speaking a *desire* out loud, one that isn't necessarily true and one that is IMO in poor taste for a candidate to voice themselves.

Don: You summed it up very well. The fear factor is being used against Hillary by opponents in both parties. That goes to show just how far they will go.

Republicans are hoping and praying (yes, really praying) that the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Hillary. My friends and I are ready to vote for any Democrat except Hillary. She is not electable on the national stage...too much baggage and too much waffeling on the issues. Also, she is in the pocket of the Jewish zionist lobby.

meuphys: I have given so many reasons for my support of Hillary and you appear to see and hear only what you agree with. I have said it before and will say again, IMO, Barack Obama has ZERO chance of being elected in 08 and has even started making snide remarks about Hillary. I expected this to happen from some of the opposition but in no way this quick. Some folks I know called me about the remarks Obama made and was suprised to learn he actually made them. Check it out.

Meuohys - Agreed! Absolutely!

I think that all of the supporters are pushing too hard for their choices, too soon.

Say, where's Tina been since that poll came out which listed just about every breathing Republican as a Presidential candidate, except...

I'd rather watch for the next 11 months before I even start thinking about whom I want to support.

I believe that Hillary would be a major disaster for the Dems. Would stop all momentum achieved in the last election. Major motivator for the right wing and would lead to an election night negative all the way down the ticket for Dems all over the Midwest and West where potential re-alignment was occuring.

Al Gore would run well, experienced and riding a wave of positive feeling with his movie and a sense of "what could have been" .

Edwards will whip HRC in Iowa and So Car. but the vote will be so splintered that who knows. Besides it is ridiculously early for us all to be so worked up.

True Believer

-great, so now we're conducting foreign policy with an eye toward deceiving the public, the majority of which is at least as intelligent as our president.'

yes, it is a time-honored tradition, but i would have to say that Cheney has elevated deception and secrecy to a high art --I doubt there's a president before him who was as decietful and dishonest.

and make no mistake he IS the president...

nor'easter - these are both good points, and i agree with both of them. however, i think not to point it out is to invite it to happen again. statistically, stupid and dishonest politicians are inevitable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent them from appearing - nor does it mean that we shouldn't call them on their fouls.

Meuphys - "...so now we're conducting foreign policy with an eye toward deceiving the public,..."

That's a time honored tradition in this country. If not back to the Founders, at least since the Mexican War.

"...the majority of which is at least as intelligent as our president."

That's a sporadic phenomonon, recently reappearing. He's not the first; and history says he won't be the last.

This 'I know what they're thinking and I know what they say when no ones listening' and 'I know how to beat them' reminds me of the right-wing conspiracy line. Is she heading down the road to the gaffe that kills a candidacy? Whether or not she's right, at this rate in twelve months she'll sound like she's drunk on the Ross Perot Kool-Aid.

To the point of the post, the 50-state strategy is the correct strategy. This strategy is not aimed at putting fifty states in play. It should be aimed at finding a handful of red states to put in play. The election will be a lot easier for any Democrat if it comes down to AR, TN, CO & NV rather than NM, IA, WI & WA on top of OH, PA and FL of course.

"Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq."

-great, so now we're conducting foreign policy with an eye toward deceiving the public, the majority of which is at least as intelligent as our president.

and lyle, another poster summed it up. you have given NO REASON to support hillary over the other candidates other than that she's your "gal" and that her husband "bubba" used to be president. these do not add up to a justification for supporting her... one, she ain't my gal, and two, are you seriously suggesting that we should conduct a democratic (small "d") election in which preference is given to someone just because of their family background? weren't 2 bushes enough? barack obama has inspired voters just because of who HE is, and what HE thinks (check his campaign website - all those who have been complaining that he hasn't taken any positions will find well-argued views on most of the major issues facing the u.s. today.) it's time for a new face, new family, new ideas. right now, obama has made a better case for his candidacy than has anyone else in either party.

Ok lylepink,
I first off disagree that she is the most qualified. I think that distinction goes to Bill Richardson. I also disagree that she is the most intelligent, that distinction goes to Barack Obama who was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Now that is not to say that she isn't intelligent because she is, but to say that she is "by far the most intellegent" is just wrong IMO. Now I will give you that Bill Clinton is a very skilled politician, probably the best,but why does that mean we should vote for her. Bill Clinton isn't running his wife is.

What issue does she champion that really drives you to support her? I agree with her on alot of issues, but then again I agree with almost all the Democratic candidates on most issues, that is why I am a Democrat. However, I disagree with her on the war, so therefore I support someone else for the time being, but I completely withhold the right to change my mind if she or one of her supporters can give me a reason why.

To my way of thinking Hillary is the strongest candidate and I believe will have the most effective cross-over strategy of all the democrats. She also represents a tremendous level of experience - something the next administration must have. There is no doubt the current cabal still adheres to their paradigm as being superior - they continue to hew the way they do because the infrastructure is in place (oil, Saudis, etc). The next president will not only have to be able to work with that infrastructure they will have to be able to lead it towards new directions. There is no doubt in my mind that the Clintons are the best at this. The question is to what extent the left will stay rooted in pacifist idealism and to what lengths the right will go in aggressive extremism.

Andy R: One reason? She is by far the most qualified. She has the most expertise on all major issues facing us today. She is by far the most intellegent. She has the best backer of all, Bubba, that most folk think, and believe, is the best political mind they have seen in their lifetime. I think these are all good reasons to support the next POTUS, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Chris, I will attempt to stay on the point.

I am a 63 year old attorney in Austin; a Democratic stronghold in a Republican state - so take my observations with those limitations of my viewing position in mind.

Many politically astute and active women I know are very favorably disposed to Mrs. Clinton.

Few politically astute and active male Democrats I know would favor her over Richardson, Edwards,
Obama, or Biden.

How does that compare with other regional views?

Mark

see there is some early,

racist mischaracterizing of Obama...

I dont have time today, but I hope that someone gives you your due...

I particularly dislike people who try to spin polls based upon character assassination, with no basis in fact...

I tend to feel a great deal of disappointment is necessary for those people to see the light, and I njoy providing that,

I hope to help mitt homophobist/hateartist be viewed more honestly soon...

it is quite a joy doing the work of beauty and truth... as an ordinary repairment of spin, by removal of such. clarity is such a rare thing.

Golgi,

you seem disappointed that she is comfortable speaking the truth herself rather than hiring shills in the audience to say it for her...

do you hire shills to speak for you, as that is the approved way?

that is what agencies that sell their products to candidates like to have happen isnt it?

generate artificial support as a way of getting to be indespensible? which is a lie.

you are like ad campaign artists that sell the product to each other, and neglect the consumer, who just wants to know what the product is, what it contains and what it does...

you sell sparkle, shine, majic, or the essence of BS and call it campaigning, please, take your campaigning and stay out of the public eye....

try honesty, and integrity, or dont show up.

Lylepink,
I have plenty of admiration for Senator Clinton. Explain to me her positions on major issues and I will take them into consideration. I have an open-mind on Hillary. She is the first legitimate Female Presidential candidate. That in itself is impressive. HOWEVER, I don't think that her accomplishments (or anyone's for that matter) allow her one bit of latitude when it comes to her stance on issues.
We are not voting for person I would like to eat dinner with, we are voting for the President of the United States. The most powerful person in the world. Anything less then a full and rigiruos examination of every candidate is not acceptable in my eyes.

So don't try and say I will use "any excuse as a reason for not supporting her" when you won't give me one reason why I should.

Andy R: You and others that do not support Hillary will use any excuse as a reason for not supporting her. I can understand the jealously so many folks have for this woman. I have seen it many times in varying forms such as envy and admiration. The sad thing about it is that you, and others, cannot admit this to yourself for fear of being considered weak in your own eyes. A strong intellegent person, male or female, should, imo, be admired and respected.

Interesting slip up by Chris in this post that shows how ridiculously early this campaign began. He referred to the election as being "next november." Seems like it no? Of course, it is in 2008.

If we want the truth on Iran, we're not going to get it from the bush administration either.

November 20, 2001

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by Eliot Cohen advocating the overthrow of the mullahs in Iran. Cohen writes: "First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the US should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the US government in regard to Iran. We can either make tactical accommodations with the regime there in return for modest (or illusory) sharing of intelligence, reduced support for some terrorist groups and the like, or do everything in our power to support a civil society that loathes the mullahs and yearns to overturn their rule. It will be wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies) to choose the latter course. The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2001]

Soon the groundwork was being laid:

February 8, 2002

Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer meets with US Vice President Dick Cheney and tells him that Israel is concerned that Iran, which Israel believes will have nuclear weapons by 2005, represents a greater threat to Israel than Iraq. "The danger, as I see it, is from a Hezbollah-Iran-Palestinian triangle, with Iran leading this triangle and putting together a coalition of terror," he tells Cheney. [Ha'aretz, 2/9/2002]

August 9, 2003

Newsday reports that according to a senior official and another source within the Bush administration, the "ultimate objective" of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and "a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran." The report says that the "immediate objective appeared to be to 'antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them.'" It apparently is no secret within the administration, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently complained directly to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, about Feith's activities. [Newsday, 8/9/2003]

January 2005

The US Air Force begins flying sorties over Iran from its bases in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars so the US can develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran." "We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," an unnamed administration official tells United Press International. [United Press International, 1/26/2005 Sources: Unnamed Bush administration officials] Washington initially denies the overflight reports. [Guardian, 1/29/2005]

January 2005

A Farsi-speaking former CIA officer says he was approached by neoconservatives in the Pentagon who asked him to go to Iran and oversee "MEK [Mujahedeen-e Khalq] cross-border operations" into Iran, which he refused to do. Commenting on the neoconservatives' ambitions in Iran, the former officer says, "They are bringing a lot of the old war-horses from the Reagan and Iran-contra days into a sort of kitchen cabinet outside the government to write up policy papers on Iran." He says their plans for Iran are "delusional." "They think in Iran you can just go in and hit the facilities and destabilize the government. They believe they can get rid of a few crazy mullahs and bring in the young guys who like Gap jeans, all the world's problems are solved," he says. [Guardian, 1/18/2005]

And the beat goes on. Today we are looking at a concerted PR campaign to implicate Iran in the Iraq war, a third carrier group is steaming to the Gulf and nobody believes a thing the US Government says.

For those above concerned about the coming War with Iran; anybody in the U. S. who lived through the Iranian Hostage Crisis knows that Iranian officials and diplomats have as much credibility as a Pentagon spokesman or Mary Matalin.

You may as well disregard everything, I repeat everything, you see attributed to an Iranian official or diplomat. If we want the truth on Iran, we're not going to get it from the Iranians.

Lylepink,
Get on board for what reason exactly. Hillary had given almost no substance at all on any of her policies. She wants to fix healthcare without raising taxes. Great, how do you plan on doing that. Energy independence, again what is her plan.
And George Bush wasn't the only one to make a mistake. Every Senator that voted for allowing George Bush to go war is just as responsible. The US Senate has a responsibility to oversee the actions of the President, and they were given that oppurtunity four years ago. There were a handful of Senators who did oppose the war, and voted against it. Why is Senator Clinton somehow not responsible for that vote?
Now if you accept that her explanation that she doesn't believe in Do-overs that is fine. But I would prefer to vote for someone who can look back on their pasts and say "I made a mistake, and I apologize for that mistake.", or someone who has never supported the war in the first place. And until I see Senator Clinton give a full explanation of why she doesn't feel that she made a mistake then I will not support her for the Democratic Primary.

golgi and blarg -- hey you know, considering the other republican rubbish the many americans have swallowed, why not?

there's at least a quarter of the citizenry who will believe ANYTHING sean hannity says... 'up' is actually 'down', you know...

Hi Blarg,
Great points.

Likely, there is some story being cooked up that finds some underhanded way to tie these three obviously mutually exclusive fact-twists together.

Hmmm. How could they possibly do that? There's always a way, if you use your imagination...

Perhaps a TV special on any members of Obama's church who have in the past converted to the Black Muslim movement. That's the first half of the TV special. The second half is about how Obama is hypocritically using his not-really-black blackness to fool Black Muslims into mobilizing behind him, so he can take over the White House for the greater good of Allah the Arabic Middle Eastern Deity.

It's good to anticipate likely attacks...

Golgi: You are not imagining things, Hillary is listening to me. drindl: McCain will do or say anything. I have no respect for this man and it goes back many years and the public will be made aware of some of the reasons, and think of the "worst hit jobs,", I seem to recall that happened in N. or S. Carolina. Remember the Bush team did this to him and now he is one their biggest supporters.

Lark, you just don't get it. The following things are simultaneously true about Barack Obama:

1. He was raised as a radical Muslim.
2. He now belongs to a militant Christian church, full of blacks who want to kill Whitey.
3. He's not really black, so blacks shouldn't vote for him.

Don't argue with the media!

I'm a liberal democrat and Hillary Clinton scares me. Not because she's a woman but, because she's pretending to be a democrat - much in the same vein as Joe Lieberman.

Plus, Hillary is a liar.

Now, she's characterizing her pro-Iraq war as a vote to unhold UN Security Council sanctions and not a use of force.

Read the AUMF. I have (it's online and free) and I can tell you it factually states Bush can use the military to go to war against Iraq.

Now either Hillary reads at a sixth grade level or she's dishonest.

Andy R: The coverage Hillary has been getting is just about the vote to give GW the option and it did in no way suggest we go to war. The intel was cooked as we all know now and the "do-overs" I mentioned earlier seems about right to me. This idea of her having to apoligize for a vote made in good faith is just another way the media has to try and paint her as someone making a mistake when GW was the one that made the mistake. Remember old lylepink is the one that has supported Hillary from the start and she will be the next POTUS. Get on board.

Hillary said "I'm the one person they are most afraid of."

Another comment on her comment... Is it typical for candidates themselves to make such statements? I feel like normally, candidates leave it to their supporters to say things like this.

Does her comment reveal a certain tone-deafness, or is it just me imagining things?

Everywhere, political punditry from the rightwing concentrates on ignoring, or distracting from, the massive contribution to Iraqi chaos made by Bush's conduct of the occupation and reconstruction. And, too many on the Left help them in this effort, prattling on about "age-old" conflicts between Shia and Sunni, with scarcely a word about how the institutions of secular society were ground to dust, leaving only ancient tribal affiliations.

The critical work of the Congress in the next 6 months is to place the responsibility for the course of the Iraq War on its conduct. The narrative, favored by the self-destructive left, of a war that was doomed from the outset, is welcomed by the rightwing which wishes to gloss over the corruption, malfeasance and incompetence. I am no fan of Hillary's (or Kerry's) conspicuous calculation, but Hillary is right to remind Democratic Primary voters that the mistakes in Iraq belong to Bush. Squabbling over which Democrats have uttered mea culpas on their support for the Iraq War at the outset does not build a political majority. Focusing attention on Bush's conduct of the war, and how the conduct of the war has contributed to the hopelessness of the current situation -- that Bush's responsibility is unambiguous and unshared.

"ABC on Obama, or what's coming down the pike: "Obama's foreign policy proposals are just one target for his critics, who have many questions for the senator, including whether his church on the South Side of Chicago -- which preaches a message of black power -- is too militant to be accepted by mainstream America."

ABC is so far radical right now it makes me sick, just sick. Now they're attacking Obama because he attends a church with a black congregation that preaches the following:

Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

This is, you see, too 'militant' -- you know, self-discipline and self respect. Those are just for white people, accoridng to ABC.

Really -- why is Hillary not making a statement about the inappropriateness of a foreign politician trashing the Democratic party? This Australian chickenhawk, another bushpoodle, has no business making judgements about our party or our country.

faced with evidence, repugs just deny reality exists...

too bad about mccain. he's sold his soul to the devil... he would sell his own children to the devil to be president..

'Sen. John McCain blasted a report in the Washington Post that said the Arizona Republican, who has campaigned against the use of "soft money," is using just those kinds of funds to support his GOP presidential nomination.

McCain told CNN the article is "worst hit job that has ever been done in my entire political career."

According to the story published on Sunday, campaign and IRS records show several of McCain's finance co-chairmen "have given or raised large donations for political parties or 527 groups."

Named after tax code, a 527 is a tax-exempt organization created to influence political campaigns. "Soft money" refers to a type of unlimited contribution to these organizations from corporate and wealthy donors.

"In all, the finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election," the Washington Post reported.''

Lylepink, Do you really think that Hillary is getting a bad rap from the media? Look at the coverage she got this weekend for making her stump speach four times in NH. The same time Obama is announcing his candidancy and taking on the PM of Australia. Not to mention Richardson, Edwards, Biden, etc. The whoa-is-hillary line just doesn't hold much water if you ask me.

I also find it completely ridiculous that Hillary Clinton and Dean's 50-state strategy are mentioned in the same paragraph. Hillary and her stooge Rahm Emmanuel were the two BIGGEST opponents of Dean's strategy.
She may have the money to run a 50-state strategy but she doesn't have the heart. I personally am going to donate to Richardson and Obama today.

faced with evidence, repugs just deny reality exists...

too bad about mccain. he's sold his soul to the devil... he would sell his own children to the devil to be president..

'Sen. John McCain blasted a report in the Washington Post that said the Arizona Republican, who has campaigned against the use of "soft money," is using just those kinds of funds to support his GOP presidential nomination.

McCain told CNN the article is "worst hit job that has ever been done in my entire political career."

According to the story published on Sunday, campaign and IRS records show several of McCain's finance co-chairmen "have given or raised large donations for political parties or 527 groups."

Named after tax code, a 527 is a tax-exempt organization created to influence political campaigns. "Soft money" refers to a type of unlimited contribution to these organizations from corporate and wealthy donors.

"In all, the finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election," the Washington Post reported.''

Watch out for the Clintons!!! Their handlers have never let Miss Hillary in front of a mixed/hostile audience, and they are not about to, when the PRIZE they deem entitled to, is just over the horizon. HRC has never won an election against formidable opposition and between herself, and Bill, have chewed up opponents, associates, and hangers-on, on their run to higher office. She needs to be confronted on the tougher issues, and get questioned on the specifics. I do not trust her naked ambition, the couple's arrogance, nor her vision of the Executive Branch for the future. That being said, she will probably gain the momentum in the primaries to go into the convention with a hefty lead. She can shoot herself in the foot, by her scathing mouth, and tipping her hand on her true positions, beyond the handler driven polls. Today, it looks like a Democratic year in '08. She just might make history at that time...God help us..........

REDFIELD, New York (AP) -- This village in upstate New York's snowbelt gets a lot of snowfall during the winter, but last week's total -- more than 11 feet, is an all-time record.

"In all my life, I mean my entire life combined, I've never seen this much snow at once," said Jim Bevridge, 47, of Timmonium, Maryland, who drove up Thursday for a long weekend of snowmobiling.

'The US is in the Middle East for along time whether we like it or not. We have screwed things up so badly that we now are faced with managing failure but the idea of Iran, with nuclear weapons, on the ground and in control of a sizable portion of the region is worse than we face today.'

and so you want the same people who have 'screwed things up so badly' to start a nuclear war with Iran?

you are a moron, danny...

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

The Illinois Democrat dismissed the suggestion that his election would help terrorist groups, noting that even the Bush administration's "own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions over there."

My gal Hillary is still getting a bad rap from the Media in just about any way they can shaft her and it is being done on a daily basis. I cannot remember how long it has been since the vote about Iraq was answered by "I don't do do-overs". Another quoted piece in an article, today I think, is about the repubs fearing her the most is what I have been saying for a long time now and was just wondering if her staff read "The Fix" and passed it to her.

The US pulls out of Iraq and Iran takes over. That is no alternative!

The US is in the Middle East for along time whether we like it or not. We have screwed things up so badly that we now are faced with managing failure but the idea of Iran, with nuclear weapons, on the ground and in control of a sizable portion of the region is worse than we face today.

A pull out of American military forces in Iraq is the simpliest thing the US can do but it is not the smartest.

Democrats should look at the geopolitical realities than electioneering. Republicans should view the war for what it is and confront the problems for what they are. Both parties with their myopic vision are selling the American people short. Americans have gotten too use to the idea "when the going gets rough, we just walk away." That plan of action will make the world a safer place to live.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

EYES SHUT, DRIVING FAST OVER A CLIFF

'At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. ...

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.'

'Feb. 19, 2007 issue - Jalal Sharafi was carrying a videogame, a gift for his daughter, when he found himself surrounded. On that chilly Sunday morning, the second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad had driven himself to the commercial district of Arasat Hindi to checkout the site for a new Iranian bank. He had ducked into a nearby electronics store with his bodyguards, and as they emerged four armored cars roared up and disgorged at least 20 gunmen wearing bulletproof vests and Iraqi National Guard uniforms. They flashed official IDs, and manhandled Sharafi into one car. Iraqi police gave chase, guns blazing. They shot up one of the other vehicles, capturing four assailants who by late last week had yet to be publicly identified. Sharafi and the others disappeared.

At the embassy, the diplomat's colleagues were furious. "This was a group directly under American supervision," said one distraught Iranian official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. Abdul Karim Inizi, a former Iraqi Security minister close to the Iranians, pointed the finger at an Iraqi black-ops unit based out at the Baghdad airport, who answer to American Special Forces officers. "It's plausible," says a senior Coalition adviser who is also not authorized to speak on the record. The unit does exist--and does specialize in snatch operations.'

'In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq.

At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn't ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan's ringing denunciations of the "evil empire."

Once again, Iran's reformists were knocked back on their heels. "Those who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized," says Adeli. "The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America's intentions."

In short, Michael Gerson and Condoleezza Rice, purely in order to make a speech that (a) sounded good, and (b) pretended not to be exclusively about Iraq, set the United States on a collision course with Iran. That's really got to be a historic speechwriting blunder.'

I agree with Yockel and vwcat - Hillary is far from the strongest Democratic candidate. She may win because it is shaping up to be a Democratic year, but her presence at the head of the ticket would doom a lot of the newly elected Democratic House members from historically Republican districts. Hillary would be the single biggest turn-out-the-vote incentive the Republicans have ever had.

I actually agree with her on the issues more than I do with Edwards. I am a charter member of the angry middle. However, an image has been imprinted on the public mind of Hillary as an extreme left wing shrew. It is not just the right wing echo chamber, it is 15 years of Leno, Letterman and a host of other comedians. She has very little cross over appeal. Her success in upstate New York had more to do with a featherweight opponent than anything else.

Look --Darth Cheney has a double --look who's afradi of obama.... the uber hawk/war profiteer howard...

'SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard of Australia denied Monday that he had a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic hopeful, to become U.S. president.

Howard, a steadfast supporter of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war, insisted that his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.

Howard's foray into U.S. politics dominated Monday's session of Parliament and news bulletins in Australia, and triggered a sharp response from Obama and senators on both sides of U.S. politics, including one who called the comments "bizarre."'

AMES, IOWA -- Soon enough the novelty will end, says Barack Obama. But not now. Not this weekend.

Over two days, tens of thousands of people turned out across Illinois and Iowa to see the freshly declared White House hopeful, spilling over city blocks and filling gymnasiums rafter-high with their red, white and blue posters, lusty cheers and wide-eyed fervor.

They came to see history, many said, to launch the journey of the most formidable black presidential candidate the nation has ever witnessed. They shouted out their affection and cheered the Democrat's call for a new style of politics -- bigger, bolder and more audacious, to borrow from the title of his best-selling autobiography, than Americans have seen in a long while.

rilly -- please stop with hillary already. i want to hear more about rudy's girlfriends, about the police riot he started when dinkins beat him in the election, etc....

Let's talk about how the WaPo is running cheney's propaganda campaign to attack iran -- here's what the BBC says...

'For a start, the fear among some is that the US is softening up world opinion for an attack on Iran. Such an attack would be aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities.

At the moment, the US lacks a casus belli and by claiming that Iran is responsible for killing USA troops, it could be laying the groundwork for a 'self-defence' justification.

The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator John Rockefeller said recently: "To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again."

There is also the fact that the US is launching its 'surge' policy of moving extra troops into Baghdad. These claims are being made against Shia militias, including the Mehdi army, one of the main targets of the latest policy.

Blaming Shia Iran for supporting Iraqi Shia militias makes it easier for the US to sell that policy at home and abroad.

Then there is the old tactic of blaming someone else for your own problems.

Many people will not distinguish between the Shia militias that Iran is said to supply - and which have ties to the Iraqi government - and the Sunni insurgents who have been the cause of much of the violence.

The allegedly Iranian supplied bombs are said to have caused the deaths of 170 American soldiers, but overall 2497 soldiers have been killed in hostile incidents, most of them at hands of the Sunnis.

The claim serves the purpose of helping to lay the blame for the whole insurgency at Iran's door.

Enough already! Five straight blogs on hillary. You are killing me!

She is a candidate of weaknesss who would govern from weakness. Hillary Clinton's nomination would undermine the progressive cause.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

clinton lacks something that is critical to her so called inevitability. She lacks crossover appeal. No one will go out of their way in her own party to vote for her so why would an indie or republican?
She has alot of other problems that will come out one by one as support drops away.
Senator Obama inspires the indie and republican voter. I have heard them say they love the guy. He gets crowds like Clinton dreams. And now that Obama has announced I expect you will see those polls changing...
I'd look for Clinton to be dropping in the polls by spring.

got a problem with Edwards if he is picking Israel as a reason to attack Iran...

JINSA/CSP/PNAC, Perle, Douglas Feith, Bolton, AIE... if you don't know the relationship between those names and acronyms, you shouldnt be running...

Clinton is the strongest of the three Dem candidates the media are obsessed with, as she has considerable experience at winning elections (some as the candidates wife, to be sure).

However, as many have rightly said, she mobilises the Repub base at a time when the base is demoralised. The base would struggle to vote for McCain/Romney/Guiliani/Gingrich (due to divorces, Mormonism, etc). But they would vote for any of them if it meant keeping Hillary out of office.

Al Gore is a stronger candidate, if he runs. Nominations for Oscars and Nobel Peace Prizes, plus 8 years experience as Vice President make him formiddable. If he doesn't run I reckon the strongest candidate is Bill Richardson. This new Bill can point to:
- executive experience as Governor of a swing state
- foreign policy experience as UN ambassador
- Administration experience as Secretary of Energy (at a time when energy is a key issue)
- appeal to minorities
- charismatic (his speech at the DNC was the best of the bunch, although Edwards was close behind)

If he gains traction, he will be very hard to stop. Hillary knows this, and I'm sure she's delighted the media continue to focus on Obama and Edwards.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

is a foolish impudence...

for those who need walkers...

there is a moment for it and not a moment for it...

I am not running, but when I speak things change....

you figure it out.

Are some of these posts actual comments or vers libre? Sentence structure is your friend.

5 Hillary posts in a row? Puh-lease. Give it up for Obama!

reframe the initiative as you campaign,

you establish a different thing to sell.

if you say something contreversial, a lot of attention is focused on a change in stepping out from the herd....

stepping out from the herd establishes a new leadership.

dont be afraid to lead. establish multiple games plans....be a Clinton, see what is the answer, not what sells, break patterns to establish new ones and dont seek to fit in, seek to alarm and offer a solution to that alarm, that is a more stable situation than the one being presented...as the probable "best way,"

.

study Helen Caldicott's sixth book, The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military Industrial Complex

and Mayimoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings, the Thomas Cleary Translation...

do not chose a position or strategy, chose to win, and _see_ how to do that...as it unfolds.

this,

Americans dont know what the war is about,

by answering framing with reframing,

they ellude the need to frame their response to

what the republicans are selling....

you can sell a product you dont believe in so why bother.

.

sell what you do see, understand and have a ready answer of who on your team will be handling a task that is outside of your expertise...

.

Hillary is the best candidate because she has done her homework. She is a tough cookie, but still cares about children, education and health care.
Yes, she voted for the war. So did almost all the candidates for President. But she thinks we should get out ASAP, now that the truth has come out.
For a person like Hillary, fighting a war instead of helping the ordinary people of the country is a travesty. She is guaranteed to quietly move as much money as possible into helping ordinary people, that means ending useless wars. She doesn't have any relatives in the weapons business.
Hillary can stand on her record because she has one. And Bill is already helping her. Whatever happened in the past, they are a team, and an outstanding one. They are making history for the strength of marriage. Republicans should be lining up in support.
Of course, I don't think they will. Luckily there are enough of the rest of us to guarantee her election.

all really need to get this...

by re framing,

you establish something _they_ need to address....

in kara te, and aikido

the person to win, is the one that establishes dominance

but the styles are different

one subdues by strength of attack,

one subdues by being the one that establishes where the fight will occur... in their space...

I would reframe the Iraq occupation, and I would establish that

Congress was misled.

read John W. Deans book.... there is no blame in being misled.

IF Iraq is about:

1. OIL
2. Using Israel, supporting Israel
3. Using Saudi/UAE/Kuwiat, supporting Saudi/UAE/Kuwiat
4. Using Americas tax dollars to support Chevron/Unocal, EXXON-MOBIL, BP, SHELL...and Israel, and UAE/Kuwiat/Saudi
5. all the above

then, American citizens should be getting paid for financing it.

not the fricking war profiteers, bush administration, complicit congress, Israeli Influence.

The truth is , the oil belongs to the Iraq People ....another Indigenous population getting their lives ruined for the whiteman....

while _they_ are called dangerous...

these guys cant stop hitting each other with sticks....how are they going to row across the ocean if they keep killing whoever is in charge...?

they are being demonized.

Obama got a really good crowd in Iowa today. Can he actually beat Hillary there? They're close in the polls, so maybe all he needs to do is hang tough and keep it even.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=42

Hillary's the strongest candidate, but that doesn't mean she'll win.

Lets see. The Republicans are totally demoralized and we are supposed to nominate the one candidate that would mobilize their base? I don't think so.

interesting....

there is a degree of letting the current administration frame the discussion that needs to be understood for what it is...

an attempt to frame _what_is_going_on_ as if it were the truth....

a candidate who answers the framing of the administration during an interview, has automatically capitulated, lost, because _they_ own that framing and will be selling that ownership in the fall of '08 if not sooner.

I would advise the Candidates to talk w/their friends in government/military/intelligence that are not part of the

current cabal, in charge of fraud, about what is going on.

The truth is, Israel is driving policy, being used by the bush war profiteers, that are also using the Saudis/UAE/Kuwiat, and Russia and Rupert Murdoch...

read some of the posts in the Sunday Washington Posts comments section before you begin having an opinion....

needing to be strong on defense is a framing, not a reality...

Israel wants us there to clear the ground and make more room for their colonial efforts...

Bush/Saudi/UAE/Kuwiat/Chevron/BP/Mobil-Exxon want us there so they get a big piece of the pie...w/o spending their money to acquire it...._they_ are spending _your_ money, to get rich, that is why _they_ are NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE INEFFIENCY OF SPENDING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, to make hundreds of billions... it

is not their money, its yours, it doesnt cost them anything...

IF the candidates allow themselves to address the whirlwind sh*tstorm of the presidents by fraud cabal,

they will be linked with it, and it is going down.

learn what these acronyms mean JINSA, CSP, PNAC, AIE, and the connections that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Negroponte, Military Industrial Complex have with them.

learn who Douglas Feith is in relation to them....

learn to not let your position be framed by Washington Insiders...

plan to remove more than the incumbent Executive Branch in '08.

Understand the implications of Negroponte, Porter Goss and Michael Chertoff as appointees and Gonzales firing of some key attorneys a couple of weeks ago. There is a weakening of oversight occuring.

With that further weakening of oversight, they can spin without fear of being refuted. And the candidates begin dancing to the Corrupt Executive Branchs' shadow show...lose credibility and get rear ended.

ciao.

"thought it's probably a safe bet that the presidential campaign will come down to a handful of states into which the two parties will pour millions of dollars."

In 2004, 10 states had Bush/Kerry seperated by 5% or less. That's TWO handfuls, or 20% of all states. I think about 1/2 the states will be in play, not just 5.

"I know what Karl Rove tells people privately"

Karl Rove also told people that the Republicans would sweep the Congressional election last fall.

Why should we vote for Hillary in the primary just because he considers her electable, if indeed he actually does?

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.net

Why the Democrats won't save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran

By Joshua Frank

Over the past weekend Hillary Clinton pledged to end the war in Iraq if she is elected. "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," she told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee's winter convention in Washington.

It was the first time since announcing her candidacy that Hillary acknowledged the growing movement against the war when discussing Iraq, which faced its bloodiest period since the invasion almost four years ago with over 1,000 reported deaths in the last seven days alone. Also in attendance at the DNC meeting were other presidential hopefuls, including John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, who both attempted to paint themselves as the best antiwar candidate in the hunt for the White House.

The top candidates' tepid words on Iraq were a sign of what's to come over the next year and a half as their rhetorical talents are turned on high. Despite Obama's reassurance that he did not support the war from the beginning, along with Edwards' claims that he's had a change of heart on his past pro-war votes -- neither candidate distinguished their position from the Bush administration when it came to the looming Iran confrontation.

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush's dubious "war on terror" or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Times like these require bravery. They require a fight. A fight against immoral and illegal policies. A fight against tyranny. A fight for freedom. Freedom from hatred. Freedom from occupation. Americans and the people of the Middle East deserve better than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. They deserve to live their lives without the threat of warfare and bloodshed. They deserve to live without fear.
Joshua Frank, author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, edits www.BrickBurner.org.