9c8y5iu9ovluilc0 f3zt5eeg7zqg [URL=http://www.1029981.com/333881.html] p481cpvd [/URL] ckbsfm7u2wyeabv

attfcwv4a1c huk7qi4zta [URL=http://www.1073174.com/334126.html] ep2i3tp6e [/URL] tyazqiqg2

mz3bvr8jgj6 [URL=http://www.1048991.com/555948.html] tmcbqyag5zd [/URL] ynt8s6iwt6urjpe8g

vote for richardson and we will see a change

I believe Giuliani did such a terriff job concerning 9/11, because he knew before hand it was to happen, and if this is proven, it will knock him out of the race, along with his open adultry.

It's interesting reading these comments: It seems like the people who follow this sort of thing carefully find Richardson electable and easily the person with the most applicable and varied experience. But I don't think the average primary voter has heard of him yet.

I have always thought that Richardson is the guy for the Democrats. If Guiliani ends up being the Repub candidate, then they won't be able to say a word about anything that Richardson might have in his closet. I have heard that if people hear Richardson speak, they come away pretty impressed. What Richardson's people need to figure out is how to get the reporters in front of him and to get his stuff in the papers. Give him a little press and he will impress.

Bill is unelectable due to his 'interns' problems.

I think we are all going to be sick of HRC and Obama by next year, which, if either are nominated, will result in low Dem. turnout in the general election. I think they are peaking way too fast although HRC's sheer $$$ dominance has me nervous. If she ends up buying the nomination in this way, Dems will lose in 2008.
I am intruiged by Richardson and want to hear more. Certainly there is a LOT of room, on both sides,for more compelling candidates.
BTW, William,not to change the subject but, from what I've heard, Kerry DID win Ohio...

Geez, Chris, you call those comments "rhetorical bombs?"

And yes, Richardson has a full-time job--unlike the lazy folks in Congress or Romney or Edwards. The telling time will be the second quarter announcement of campaign money in June. If Richardson can show decent contributions, he'll attract more attention.

And he'll be able to visit the "air-conditioned" splendor of New Hampshire, where I suspect the voters will be impressed by his candid approach and his genuine way of communicating.

If Richardson can raise enough money to hang around, he will likely be in a great position as the "someone else" candidate.

Only one person will emerge from the Clinton-Obama match-up, and then hopefully the masses will flock to Richardson as more "electable" (but unlike Kerry in 2004, he would likely win).

CC, thanks for actually covering a non "top tier" candidate for a change. Keep it up.

"The Fire Fighter is about the most respected and well thought of as any profession I can think of."

I agree lp , even volunteer firefighters! Those Union bosses just can't stand anyone else hogging their glory.

proudtobeGOP: In many suburban areas the volunteer firefighters are just as much fulltime as the IAFF guys. The politicians use the guise of volunteer to keep the IAFF from having influence.

If it wasn't so dangerous, it would be comical when there is a question about jurisdiction and the volunteer and IAFF departments get into actual fights over who will fight a fire, while the fire burns.

Volunteers in Podunk are not the same as volunteers in urban areas. In many urban/suburban areas the volunteer has evolved into a political gimmick. The firefighters' intentions are good, the politicians' not necessarily the same.

proudtobeGOP:The Fire Fighter is about the most respected and well thought of as any profession I can think of. I don't think Rudy was there, and their union has a lot of problems with him about the cleanup at the WTC and other matters.

"It's scary to think that I actually partly agree with William (except the sweeping generalizations)." - Artie

No, it's not. William is a troll who trawls.

William throws out so much bait that, not all of it racist or bigotted or arcane and irrelevant, that frequently he's bound to include something which we agree with.

Just don't get sucked into his net.

Good point on "Richardson actually displays a personality. And in the real world, as the last two presidential elections have clearly shown, being a genuine, regular-guy is something people vote for."

Here's your new maverick...Chuck Hagel.. making a fool of himself in front of union bosses by equating volunteer fire fighters to actual pros. OH THE HORROR!

Was he trying to invoke the ire of unions? Or was it that he just did not understand his audience??

Better get your facts straight Chuck.

At one point during the IAFF's seven-hour presidential forum , Hagel praised volunteer firefighters -- to the dismay of those in the union audience.

God forbid a candidate praise the volunteers! No, no! THEY did not finance the last election!

It's scary to think that I actually partly agree with William (except the sweeping generalizations). I don't think that Hillary and Obama are unelectable; both could win the general, and would probably be slightly favored given the general drift away from republicans of the general population. But the democrats could find a much better candidate.

And then William mentions Warner and Schweitzer, who I think would both make excellent presidents, much better than the current front-runners, and who I would be thrilled to support in a general election. Both are good leaders who get things done. I think the same thing about Richardson.

I always enjoy when the media wonders about why Richardson isn't doing better. Um, because you're not talking about him? Does the media really not recognize the circle? They talk about the rock star candidates, in polls the people only know anything about the candidates the media have talked about so they pick them, and then the media sees the polls and declares the leaders the frontrunners and by and large only reports on them. And the circle goes on.

Finally, I'll say that previous mentions of Richardson being "undisciplined", I don't see that as a negative. The same democrats who decided that Kerry was the "electable" candidate and instructed Gore to not have a personality are the ones who are going to push the idea that Richardson is undisciplined and therefore a bad choice. Richardson is "undisciplined" because he acts like a real human being and not a robot trying to be completely inoffensive to everyone. Richardson actually displays a personality. And in the real world, as the last two presidential elections have clearly shown, being a genuine, regular-guy is something people vote for. Add that to Richardson's spectacular resume and you get the ideal candidate.

William,

A truism about Illinois is that if you take out Chicago, what you are left with is Indiana (and after all, Illinois has supplied people like Henry Hyde and Dennis Hastert). With that in mind, go look at the link I provided and see how people outside of Chicago feel about Obama.

Here is the bottom line, William: you are assuming that Americans will vote like racists when it comes to Obama. But people across the state of Illinois, including the suburbs and rural areas, have proven that Americans are not the racists that you have claimed they are. And the people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and so on, are no different than these people in Illinois.

So, it is time for a choice, William. If you are not yourself a racist, you can admit your assumptions were wrong and be happy about that. But if you are not willing to be happy about that, then it is time to admit you are not talking about how Americans actually are, but rather about how you want Americans to be. And if that is true, it is time for you to stop denying you are a racist yourself.

'WASHINGTON -- A Senate Republican is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal as Democrats weigh subpoenaing President Bush's top aides in the escalating political furor over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire called for Gonzales' ouster Wednesday just hours after Bush expressed confidence in the attorney general, who is a longtime friend.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview. "I think the attorney general should be fired."

"IL is a very liberal state - hardly a bellwhether for the US as a whole."

Illinois is a left-moderate state, but not "very liberal." It has been trending more liberal because Democrats came in power of all three branches after scandalous behavior by our former governor, but historically Illinois has been a bellweather.

Unlike in the Western states, there's no liberals mounting a strong push for medical marijuana. Tort reform passed here last year. A gay marriage ban has been on the books since the mid-90s and there's no chance of civil unions being approved for at least 5-10 years, probably longer than that.

It's actually fairly representative of the United States as a whole.

There's a large metropolis alongside water that's surrounded by aging suburbs and growing exurbs. Along the rivers there's aging rustbelt cities trying to build a future in a post-NAFTA world. In university towns the economies are thriving from the new technology and service-based economies. And there's also a helluva lot of farmland and the southern tip of the state is much more like the South than it is the Midwest.

William, Mosley Braun was appointed to the senate.

Governor Richardson will still be there next February. He'll do well in Iowa and he'll win Nevada. He'll build the big momentum toward New Hampshire and South Carolina. After that anything is possible.

"As for the "Wilder Effect", Obama was up 33-19 on Dan Hynes (a white guy, William) in the final Chicago Tribune poll before the Senate primaries. He won 53-24 over Hynes."

Yeah, in ILLINOIS!!!

Carol Mosely Braun was elected to the senate from IL too.

IL is a very liberal state - hardly a bellwhether for the US as a whole.

meuphys: I see your point, although, I think a misguided one. The Clinton years were the best this country has had for generations, and I think Hillary would, most likely, govern along the same lines. drindl, the name calling serves no purpose.

I aim to please, Colin.

By the way, I want to mention I know quite a few conservative Republicans who almost certainly would not vote for Obama. But most of them actually like the fact that race seems to be a non-issue for Obama.

And that in my experience is the dominant conservative viewpoint. They share the ideal of a race-blind society, and oppose things like identity politics and affirmative action precisely because they think these things are inconsistent with such an ideal. William in that sense is insulting conservatives as much as anyone else, as the link I provided shows.

DTM -- stop using those pesky "facts." They get in the way of basing one's "analysis" off of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes. Really, you should be nicer to all the 19 year olds who are posting. Dont' you realize they have all the answers based upon their VAST life experience and interactions with diverse groups of people?

Seriously though, great link. Thanks for the info.

As for the "Wilder Effect", Obama was up 33-19 on Dan Hynes (a white guy, William) in the final Chicago Tribune poll before the Senate primaries. He won 53-24 over Hynes.

Here is some polling data from Illinois:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9acde2f2-da64-4175-bb54-121eaf30bb18

Note how Obama and Durbin (Durbin is white, William) do comparatively among whites and hispanics. Note the same thing about suburban, collar county, and downstate folks (if you know Illinois, you know what that means). Heck, note the same thing about conservatives and moderates, pro-life people, and gun owners.

William, although this shows everything you imagined is wrong, you aren't a racist, so this should be good news, right?

Right?

'Obama will not attract swing Latinos and may even drive away Dem Latinos.

Furthermore, many Asians are wary and distrustful of black and Hispanic politicians and will be driven into the arms of the GOP. That is a fact.'

It's a fact, is it? Because you say so? All Asians are wary of all black and Hispanic politicians? Your generalizations and stereotyping cast a wide net, son.

'btw..leftist is socialist..leaning left is fear of making a commitment because you think you might be wrong, and that would be embarassing at the Edwards for President club at some elitist institution of higher learning... while living off of daddy's money.'

wtf.... are you taking about W?

Exactly, William. Which is precisely why Obama has been so unpopular with white voters in Illinois.

Oh wait--that is the OPPOSITE of the truth.

Stop insulting the American people, William. We aren't a bunch of racists.

"William, I'm still not sure why you think either Hillary or Obama is utterly unelectable. The only republican they consistenly trail in polls is Giuliani, and only by a few points. Obama's fav/unfav splits are in striking distance of Giuliani's, and he's less well known. Hillary is an exceptionally well known commodity; what you see is what you'll get in the final polls and it will be hard to knock her down any farther. "

Every time I predict that Obama will suffer massively from the "Wilder effect" I am smeared as a racist, but I believe that is what will happen.

Since Obama is being treated as a rock star by the MSM, a lot of average people are not willing to criticize him openly.

But you can bet the GOP will use all of his weaknesses against him, and voters WILL be swayed.

In the privacy of the voting booth, most average Americans will not be willing to vote for a black man with a Muslim name. I mean, come on, his middle name is Hussein.

Obama, despite being a minority, will not really appeal to most Latino voters, who more closely identify with whites in general.

And in many swing states, Latinos are the key swing constituency.

Obama will not attract swing Latinos and may even drive away Dem Latinos.

Furthermore, many Asians are wary and distrustful of black and Hispanic politicians and will be driven into the arms of the GOP. That is a fact.

THe race/Muslim thing is the elephant in the room, which Obama's supporters and Dems in general are foolish to pretend is a non-issue, just b/c they don't feel comfortable talking about it.

Also, despite what his supporters say, Obama has an EXTREMELY liberal and disturbing record in the IL legislature.

As for HRC, she is waaay to polarizing. A lot of average people are scared of her since they remember how far out she was in the nineties. Also, she is a Clinton, and people are tired of Bushes and Clintons. Finally, she comes off as arrogant, as if she believes the presidency is hers to inherit. And, she seems so scripted and unauthentic. I bet every word she says is vetted first.

People who think Obama or HRC can win should sit down with a map of the US and color in states they think he can win.

I mean, if KERRY couldn't even take Ohio in a year when the war was a big issue, do you think America is ready to elect Barack Hussein Obama?

Get real.

There were a lot of states that went to Kerry by a very small margin, and since the GOp nominee will likely be a moderate, they will be up for grabs.

Obama will not be able to take any Bush states, and will likely lose NH, PA, WI, MI, MN, WA, OR and possibly even others.

Rudy Guiliani could even take CA, I think.

While a Hispanic candidate could likely turn several swing states with significant numbers of Hispanics blue (CO, NM, NV, FL), almost all black people already vote Democratic, and the states with large numbers of black people either already vote Dem (IL, MD) or will NEVER vote for Obama (the Confederacy.)

and, lylepink, i heard clips of hillary speaking to the firefighters and i have to say, it sounded like everything she said was a poll-tested applause line. and her voice - i know it's not supposed to be relevant to a vote either for or against her, but her voice reminds me of a motor that's working too hard. combine that with what i know about the clintons, and it turns me right off.

yes, i know she can be counted on to adopt whatever the mainstream democratic position is, but i would rather have a politician who believed in a cause outside him or her self, regadless of its popularity or lack thereof.

and i still can't get past her being bill's wife. bush, clinton, bush, clinton. depressingly formulaic for a country that is the most multicultural in the world.

well, well.

first of all, what's wrong with socialism? it's a utopian ideal, true, but it has never really been tried in human history... possibly because it IS a utopian ideal and presupposes that humans will be able to always act with the greater good in mind.

that, unfortunately, is contrary to human nature. even more unfortunately, we therefore embrace the polar opposite, which is winner-take-all market capitalism. that fits only too well with human nature, but does not celebrate the best parts of it - intellect, creativity, empathy - but rather the worst - greed, suspicion, competition.

so we as a species have for centuries tried to balance altruism with selfishness, with generally incomplete results. some countries, such as the soviet union and china, pursued the collectivist ideal to totalitarian extremes, and the result for all not members of the inner circle was disaster.

some countries, such as the u.s., pursued and still pursue human greed, seeing in it an engine which can provide opportunities for all. unfortunately, greed unleashed is extremely difficult to control, and the part about it providing opportunity for others is conveniently forgotten by those for whom no opportunity is needed.

i guess my point is that either system, when taken to the extremes, does not benefit the average person. which is to be expected, but seeing as how we as humans have free choice (or think we do), we might at least try to find a middle ground which can provide opportunity - fairly - while still providing for those who do not benefit.

and, gggf, i do not live off daddy's money. and i am certainly old enough to have amassed enough life experience to be able to say, whether or not those with ideals are naive, i know for sure that those who have abandoned them (or maybe never had them) are small-minded cynics unable to see a world larger than their day-to-day. not everything worth having comes with a price tag, and those things which are most worth having never do. i would much rather be a less wealthy idealist than a small-minded anti-intellectual cynic.

so there.

(and just so i stay 'on topic,' i think richardson is a smart and capable politician who conceivably could help the country to find a sensible middle ground which still had some heart. i have no faith in any of the republicans running to do the same.)

Richardson and the rest of the Dem also-rans will be out by this fall (except for Kucinich). But at least BR knows he has a solid future as a sure-thing VP contender.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

If you want to be really precise, Marxism and socialism are two very different things. Marx, in fact, argued that socialism is to capitalism as prostitution is to marriage (the idea being that the woman/worker passes from being the property of an individual to being the property of the community, but remains in a position of servitude).

Of course, in general it is just downright silly to accuse anyone who believes the government should be involved in solving some particular problem of being a socialist, just as it would be downright silly to accuse a person who wanted the government to stay out of that particular issue of being an anarchist.

GGGF: The name calling serves no useful purpose.

Blarg..I agree, she is one of the more moderate dem. Not in terms of economics though and yes, she does send out some Marxist signals

Lylepink: Exactly. You are a moderate, and you support Hillary. You know other moderates, who also support Hillary. That proves my point, which is that Hillary is a moderate Democrat. Calling her a Marxist, as GGGF did, is just insane. She's one of the more conservative Democrats in the race, possibly the most conservative.

btw..leftist is socialist..leaning left is fear of making a commitment because you think you might be wrong, and that would be embarassing at the Edwards for President club at some elitist institution of higher learning... while living off of daddy's money.

Nissl, your naivete is understandable given your identity as a young progressive which by definition means idealistic, youthful, energetic, and painfully unworldly and misinformed. Come back in 30 years, or when you have passed two or three low level college economics classes.

why does CC always mention Richardson in the negative? I think his firebomb today was a bit corny, maybe too negative, but the man has a point. He can't afford to be campaigning all the time since as a governor he has work to do. However CC seems to always throw something negative in while discussing Richardson (like his being "undisciplined" - whatever that means).

What he should really be asking is why a moderate governor with a good record, lots of international experience, and a handle on energy isn't doing better in the polls. Perhaps more importantly, why is he and the rest of the media classifying him as second-tier, when they classify Romney as first-tier. For God sakes, Romeny is also in the single-digits but has far less experience in government, no international credentials (he sounds outright lame when talking about the "jihadists"), and has flip-flopped so much that he makes Kerry look like a straight-shooter.

I'm not being entirely rhetorical here - why isn't Richardson doing better, and why isn't the media giving him the attention he deserves?

Blarg: I am not able to find any of these lefties, progressives, etc., among folks I know. The problem I have is getting people to register and vote. My 10 years as a notary in the 80 & 90's showed just how hard it was, and it is even worse now. The vast majority of folks I kmow would be considered moderate, dem or repub, and there is not a single one that I KNOW is not for Hillary. A lot depends on where you are and the income bracket.

I'm really writing because I would like to receive Chris' blog regularly. I'm enjoying his tv appearances very much and want to know more of his opinions. dboylan4@comcast.net

'There are no self identified leftists, well except for perhaps Harry Belafonte, they won't admit it'

Wrong. I do. I admit to leaning left, much as many here lean right. But 'leftist' is not 'socialist'. Unless you say that those leaning right are 'fascist'... hmm.

GG, I suspect you're just trolling, but if not, wake up, it's not 1970 any more. It's apparent to the vast majority of younger progressives like me that market mechanisms are far and away the most efficient way to organize capital in most fields. But, there are indeed externalities that need to be accounted for.

Global warming. Who's going to do something about excess CO2 emissions? Collective action is necessary to lower CO2 release. Like the conservative authors of the economist, I favor CO2 emissions markets to maximize the efficiency of the cut down.

Health care. Somehow we spend almost twice the percentage of our GDP on health care as those evil European nations, yet 1/6 of Americans have no health insurance. Insurance premiums for those who do have insurance are massively increased by the poor and freeloaders. We need a market-based way to fix this situation.

These are just a couple of examples of mainstream democratic planks in the next election. I don't see radical socialism, I see moderate, market-based solutions to pressing problems that won't readily solve themselves.

'This is not what the socialist, Hugo Chavez lite, John Edwards is for, nor the Marxist Hillary Clinton'

LOL. Hillary, the corporate Marxist?

And yes, blarg, John Edwards hates jobs and puppies and babies too.

One more thing to add... any way you slice it the republican field is a bigger disaster than the dem field. I already went over Giuliani's known issues. Then you have McCain, old and pasty and tied not just to the war but to the escalation. Even if the escalation prevents civil war, and I hope it does, Iraq will still be a dangerous place and our troops will still be there come election time. Also, get ready to watch him fall asleep in the SOTU address about 500 times.

Romney is a proven avid flip-flopper, not to mention the mormon thing, a far bigger negative than being black or female these days. Gingrich has massive negatives and a fairly sordid personal life. Huckabee is a sensible candidate for the evangelical right but doesn't seem to be gaining any ground (because of the tax thing? I dunno). No one else is in shouting distance.

Ugh.

Blarg, Mine of course. There are no self identified leftists, well except for perhaps Harry Belafonte, they won't admit it. Many folks say they like the Edwards and Hillary's brands of populism. Progressives and liberals don't think of themselves as leftists, or won't admit it. Its really just textbook definitions of socialism and Marxism.

I have never seen any self-identified leftist, progressive, or liberal say that they like Hillary Clinton's policies. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of posts like GGGF's. I wonder whose opinion of Hillary's policies is more trustworthy.

But otherwise, I agree. John Edwards hates jobs. And freedom. And, possibly, puppies.

William, I'm still not sure why you think either Hillary or Obama is utterly unelectable. The only republican they consistenly trail in polls is Giuliani, and only by a few points. Obama's fav/unfav splits are in striking distance of Giuliani's, and he's less well known. Hillary is an exceptionally well known commodity; what you see is what you'll get in the final polls and it will be hard to knock her down any farther.

That is not true for Giuliani. Right now most people only know Giuliani for the excellent job he did during 9/11, not his private life or authoritarian management style (as far as NYCers are concerned, current mayor Bloomberg is far more popular). Trust me, those things are going to come out. Thanks to the internet, accurate information is far harder to control than it was in 2004.

I will say that I agree that the democrats shouldn't look at 2006 and assume 2008 will be a cakewalk, even if Bush's credibility stays in the toilet. Republicans seem likely to nominate a moderate, "apology" candidate like Giuliani rather than a winger who would lose massively. Don't disagree with your impressions of Edwards, Dodd, or Biden, either. Frankly, I don't know if any of them really know why they're running.

drindl, Richardson is pro tax cuts, pro business, pro economic growth, pro jobs! This is not what the socialist, Hugo Chavez lite, John Edwards is for, nor the Marxist Hillary Clinton. Big economic difference.

reason -- what do you mean by the word 'moderate' -- what are his positions on issues that make you feel 'left wing dems' will never elect him? How would you know? Can you read minds?

Bill Richardson actually is a fairly bi-partisan guy, and he's a very seasoned politician with foreign relations experience, gubernatorial experience and he's been in congress. But he's fairly moderate, the left wing dems will never elect him as their nominee.

Chris,

I think your favorite, Edwards, would be well-served by demonstrating a similar amount of urgency.

'Considering the current less-than-mediocre field of Dems pursuing the presidency'

Not like the two-faced, groveling, flipflopping sellout republicans

William, agreed on the less then stellar field of dems..You can't actually be suggesting though that the repubs field is any better can you? Seems if your a "true" Goldwater conservative you have Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter..Probably not much of a chance either gets out of the primary. For social cons there's Sam Brokeback and maybe Mike Huckabee..Again neither will represent the gop come '08..So your left with either of your sides going for the least bad choice? Not exactly a ringing endoresment of your field..

William, what is your obsession with Sweitzer and Breseden? Why do you think that they'd crush every opponent in the field? None of them have any name recognition or built-in fundraising capability. What's so exciting about them? Do they have a wealth of political experience? Exciting new ideas? Tremendous charisma?

Or are they just the sort of traditional white guys that you are more personally comfortable with?

Richardson is behind the pack because people aren't paying attention yet. Show me a poll of democratic caucus goers in Iowa and I bet Richardson is at 10-20% if they had to choose today.

I think he needs to stop psuedo-attacking the other people running though. It sounds childish to me. His resume is excellent and he should bring that up once in every speach otherwise he should talk about what he will do to fight the real problems we face. Let the voters come to him via word of mouth and the traditional grassroots.

Bill Rcihardson certainly appears to be the most genuine dem candidate, Obama seems to be genuine too. Now about the others?!

Considering the current less-than-mediocre field of Dems pursuing the presidency, Richardson is probably the only electable candidate.

He's been prominent in politics for a while and has name recognition. I wonder why he's only at 4%. Maybe people just don't like him.

I think the Dems are going to self-destruct in 2008. Their two leading candidates are extremely weak, and unelectable, though Dems, giddy from their 06 successes, haven't realized it.

Edwards is too much of a lightweight and seems like a hypocrite, considering his house scandal and all. He's swung too far to the left since 2004. He's practically become a socialist in the hope of attracting the liberal base of the Dem party. Anyone who is experienced and strong on national security would mop the floor with him.

Can you imagine Edwards vs. Guiliani or McCain or Gingrich in a debate? It would be hilarious.

I think Richardson could hold his own in a debate. He seems like a bright, idea-oriented guy.

The others (Dodd, Biden) are Kerry-type Dem senators, and I doubt they would attract much support from the Dem base who are looking for someone new, young, and fresh.

If HRC cared about what was best for her party, she would drop out of the race and encourage Sweitzer or Warner or Bredesen to run and throw her support to him.

But she is too selfish to do that.

Aside from maybe Richardson, I don't think any Dem running poses a threat to the GOP in 2008.

The only matchup I would be worried about (aside from Richardson) is Edwards-Romney, since both of them have little experience and Romney is a Mormon, and has a liberal record.

Edwards-Guiliani would also be less sure than other matchups for us, but I think Rudy could pull it off.

Iraq

(Just wanted to get that out there)

OK resume postings on topic

I will vote the presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, who has the most aggressive plan (with commitment) to combat global climate change. Period.