vdzgbtap swvbhg lszfkwit kaprh cgtipaqe jdrlw auesmy

gapx3n3ukb ffyjl3a9w0 [URL=http://www.216983.com/396952.html] to1h30r29c [/URL] rjizukzy7zo

Yeah if you had participated in ABC's online poll you would have noticed that Dennis Kucinich was the clear winner by a longshot. Followed by Obama and Clinton of course. ABC soon removed the poll from its website, replaced it with another poll in which Dennis and Hillary tied - they didn't like thta either - so they canned the results from their web page. If you go here - you'll see you can't find results when they don't like them.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/abc-news-national-polls.html

Here's a screenshot of the actual poll.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/20/online-voters-pick-kucinich-as-winner-of-abc-debate

Gotta love the media.

I would like to remind those who are so eager to call the Liberals names by insisting that they don't stand for anything that they should look the word up in the dictionary.
I am not ashamed to be a Liberal and I fail to understand how those under-educated Conservatives like to call us names. Is it because they are under-educated and don't know their History and better English?I

It seems the Posts always bring out the epublican wackos. They seem to all sound alike, mostly to beat up on Hillary.
Would someone tell us who the REAL DIVIDER in this country is? Will someone tell us all how Hillary has divided uson anything?
This Division thing about Hillary is Republican HYPE and has no merit whatsoever.
However, any Democrat who wins the nomination will be a 100% improvement over what we have now and if any Republican candidate wins.
I am also sick of those so-called debates.
Thanks for this chance to vent.

K bizzle, Wesley Clark was totally new to politics when he ran; still he was able to win the primary in Oklahoma -even after Kerry's surge. I think that is a pretty good first effort for someone who used his brother as his chief advisor and to the best of my knowledge has never run for elected office. I concur with JimD

Mark in Austin writes
"The op-ed yesterday has stayed with me."

I had a chance to read that tonight. The soldiers made some interesting points from a perspective unavailable to most of us here.

That was well written, at 10:10PM. You are, I think, becoming more inclined toward thinking nothing good will come of the Iraq occupation as the months pass. Perhaps I think that about your position because mine has moved in that direction. The op-ed yesterday has stayed with me.

K Bizzle

I do not see how Wesley Clark would be a weakness as VP because he did not fare well as a presidential candidate in 04. He won as many primaries as John Edwards did (exactly one). There is a long history of fairly unsuccessful presidential candidates making good VPs later on - Hubert Humphrey in '64, Walter Mondale in '76, George H. W. Bush in '80 and Al Gore in '92. Each of these successful VP candidates had fairly poor showings as presidential candidates in the current or previous presidential campaign.

zouk

I think I have found something we both agree on - I definitely believe that most contributions are given because the contributor likes the positions the candidate takes. I think that the corrupting influence of money in politics ifs far more subtle, the Cunninghams and Jeffersons are the exception. Politicians tend to tailor their positions to suit the audience. At first this is not so much changing positions as it is emphasizing areas of agreement and downplaying areas of disagreement. As a politician faces election after election, the positions which attract lots of donations become more attractive than the positions which discourage donations. This all happens within certain parameters, Democrats are not likely to adopt anti-abortion positions to attract funding and Republicans are not likely to advocate tax increases. However, some formerly deficit hawk Republicans might be less inclined to advocate certain spending cuts or revenue increases to avoid alientating donors. Some Democrats become less inclined over time to oppose positions adopted by big labor and thereby alienate an important source of funds and campaign staff.

proudtobegop writes: "Most importantly, such statements highlight an uncomfortable unwillingness on the part of many war detractors to see the situation in a rounder, fuller perspective - that victory is an option and that defeat isn't an exclusively American, or a partisan, problem....for now, momentum is on our side and not for our enemies."

Exactly how is victory an option if the Iraqi government cannot cobble together a representative majority? Victory in Iraq is essentially a political goal. It can only be achieved if the main groups in Iraqi society can agree on a political settlement. Exactly which developments lead you to believe that a political settlement is within reach? Our troops can pacify specific areas if enough troops are commited. What are we doing that will ensure the areas remain pacified after the troops leave? The strategy behind the surge is to buy time for the Iraqi political groups to achieve some agreement on a comprehensive political settlement. Without such a settlement the surge is simply akin to squeezing a water balloon - the water relocates. There are strong indications that the surge is simply causing armed groups to lie low or relocate. The surge is not something we can sustain indefinitely.

I submit it is the war supporters who are incapable of seeing the situation in a "rounder, fuller perspective". The mindless prattle about fighting them there so we don't fight them here is imbecilic. Intelligence estimates put the foreign jihadists at no more than 10% of the problem in Iraq. The main causes of violence are indigenous groups fighting each other or opposing our occupation. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror it is a distraction which has directly resulted in the Taliban becoming resurgent in Afghanistan since we diverted resources to Iraq.

I do not support a withdrawal from Iraq, the chaos would have severe reprecussions. However, we should redeploy our troops and stop trying to referee a civil war. Our troops should concentrate on guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity, training Iraqi forces and conducting strikes against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Only a political settlement will resolve 90% of the violence in Iraq and that depends on the main Iraqi groups agreeing to compromise. I see no evidence that these groups are willing to split the difference and reach a compromise agreement. I see no evidence that the administration is using its leverage to pressure the groups into reaching a settlement. I challenge any of the war supporters to explain how we achieve 'victory' if the main groups in Iraq do not agree to a political settlement.

Bokonon,

Sorry, I meant to say that Warner balances with executive experience.

I think Wes Clark while a relative moderate, would represent a little weakness, since he ran and didn't do well at all. Both Richardson and Warner are clear winners.

Were we watching the same debate? Listen to how many times Richardson says "I" or "me." I've already formed an opinion about him, but he always manages to reinforce how unsuited he is for the presidency. His simple-minded idea of bringing all of the troops home immediately sounded almost Gravel-esque. On the other hand, Biden showed his intelligence and maturity. A small mind got us into this mess. It will take a brilliant leader to get us out. I cannot imagine a Biden presidency at this point, but if he wanted to leave the Senate he would make an excellent Secretary of State.

Please ignore Zouk/Trotsky and the cadre of anonymous posters.

Responding to them in any way only encourages them--just like a petulant child as someone observed earlier.

They will never concede losing the argument and hence "debating" them is futile.

Without the encouragement, they will go away and we can all enjoy a better discussion.

My vote goes to the first one who draws the Michael Vick parallel.

K Bizzle, what about Wes Clark with Obama? Warner doesn't have much more legislative experience than Obama - 1 term as VA governor. Richardson maybe... but I agree, not Bayh.

Alright I'll be the first to throw it out there The Obama/_______ ticket:

*Personally I think Obama is going to win Iowa and subsequently many states and the nomination.

1) Obama/Richardson
-Takes care of the experience deal. Adds tremendous foreign policy credentials to the ticket. Improves standing with the Hispanic vote. Adds a pro-gun, moderate democrat to the ticket. Balances geographically with a westerner.

2)Obama/Warner (Mark)
-Would easily be one of the most charismatic tickets in recent memory. Balances relatively liberal Obama with another unifying moderate. Balances geographically with a very White Mid-Atlantic man. Balances with legislative experience.

3)Obama/Bayh
-Not my favorite, too much Midwest. However, would be another charismatic campaign, and the almost conservative Bayh would provide a healthy ideological balance. Not likely though because both are legislators.

*Last point, I believe that one litmus test of Obama's VP candidate will be executive experience. I don't think that we will see two senators on a ticket again for a very long time. Look to some democratic governors to be chosen as Obama's VP nominee.
Keep checking the Obameter, it's going up.

"Just because we're not finding them doesn't mean they're not there," says Major Alayne Conway of the dread Iranian infiltrators. By the same token, of course, maybe the insurgency is being fueled by Martians or Venezuelan space terrorists -- after all, just because we're not finding them doesn't mean they're not there.

My old record is once every four minutes but I can beat that now. Watch.

I'm beating myself. Just like every Saturday night. Te he.

Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress have published their third bi-annual Terrorism Index. "In the third Terrorism Index, more than 100 of America's most respected foreign-policy experts see a world that is growing more dangerous, a national security strategy in disrepair, and a war in Iraq that is alarmingly off course."

A scouring of the legislative website of the Library of Congress, from 1995 to 2002, when Mr. Thompson was in the Senate, yields a total of five bills that became law for which he was the head sponsor. A sixth passed the Senate and was replaced by an identical House bill that was eventually signed by the president.

The bills include the naming of a post office and courthouse in Cookeville, Tenn., a private bill that granted permanent residency status to a young Bolivian girl getting treatment for cancer and her family and several other minor pieces of legislation. A quick comparison with Senator John McCain, his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, for the same period turns up 17 bills that became law for which Mr. McCain was the lead sponsor.

In terms of all bills, amendments and resolutions they sponsored during that time period, the scorecard for McCain versus Thompson reads: 840 to 167.

Then again, lazy and old as he may be, the DC pundit class finds him sexy, manly and virile. So supposedly that counts for something.

...In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse -- namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."...

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

"I have no life--no family, no job, no interests"

IC - maybe a double session of group this week will help.

congrats, you ruined the blog again. you must be proud. A ho!

like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any.

YEs I am. now I insist someone exchange insults and annoying banter with me NOW. don't listen to zouk. ignore him, not ME. Or else!

'What joy you must get out of ruining this blog. Is your life that dark and lonely?'

Talking to yourself again, zouk/trotsky/hwkins/whoever the voices in your head are?

I will now post as fast and furious as my adolescent hands can cut and paste from hateful sites. My old record is once every four minutes but I can beat that now. Watch. and if anything intelligent shows up, it's not me, its zouk. you can always tell my stuff by the anger and the ribald humor. I go over to the middle school when I run out of material. If you don't think its funny the first time come back every day for a month or two, I repost early and often.

accept no substitutes, I am the original ignorant coward.

I have no life--no family, no job, no interests. All I am able to do is sit here all day and cut and paste from the Weakly Standard and parrot Sean Hannity cliches over and over and over again -- and drool.

'This is a perfect example of why legislating defeat in Iraq is an unnacceptable platform.'

We don't have to. The Iraqis are doing it themselves.

like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any.

YEs I am. now I insist someone exchange insults and annoying banter with me NOW. don't listen to zouk. ignore him, not ME. Or else!

Posted by: | August 20, 2007 05:26 PM

I am such a little baby. Wah wah wah.

And why do I think anyone cares what a nasty troll like me has to say? I have no idea.

-------------------------------------

At least your self awareness is keen, unlike your wit. Have you been reduced to posting under your rivals name now for good. figures you loser. Ran out of things to steal from Kos today? What joy you must get out of ruining this blog. Is your life that dark and lonely?

"Hillary is a winner as long as she keeps the other candidates off of her back. She's doing that splendidly right now."

She was asked yesterday if she would forgo accepting campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists. I'd post the response but it would take up far too much space, and people wouldn't find an answer in it any way.

Pretty pathetic for a "leader." How much longer can she get away with it?

Hillary is a winner as long as she keeps .......not answering any questions and sticks to the script. and try to be funny will ya?

I am such a little baby. Wah wah wah.

And why do I think anyone cares what a nasty troll like me has to say? I have no idea.

like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any.

YEs I am. now I insist someone exchange insults and annoying banter with me NOW. don't listen to zouk. ignore him, not ME. Or else!

Hillary is a winner as long as she keeps the other candidates off of her back. She's doing that splendidly right now.

http://political-buzz.com/

Stop using my name ignorant coward. your "friends" on the swing set are calling you, little dude. they want to beat you up again.

J - I am always puzzled by the interpretation of a politician who either changes his mind or goes with the crowd. Is it wrong to consider a point of view and then alter your stance? under any circumstance? I am not talking about right before a big election but ever? Likewise is it better to do what your district prefers or stick to your positions you campaigned upon? this quest for motivational aspects seems to be somewhat of a treadmill. how will anyone ever know the real answer?

This extends to campaign finance. some very cynical folks assume if you vote for something in congress, you must have been bribed but the real fact is that either lobbysits give to both sides to hedge or they give to members who support their side already. there is almost zero evidence of any quid pro quo. yet many assume the worst.

If you are from VA, expect support from big tobacco, it is a big crop here. and under all circumstances, the member from VA should help this industry.

Recently a donor who gave the same amount every year to a certain candidate was called into question after a favorable vote by the candidate/member. the MSM reporter who wanted a quick route to the top tried to make it seem like a single donation was worth the vote. In reality, the member would have voted that way all the time and the contribution for that year was irrelevant and even unknown by the member. but not if it makes a slimy story.

I don't have answers to these questions, more just musings on the cynicism of the current voter and political activist.

""taking a poll or asking everyone else what they think first" - this is most like the clinton policies, even vacation plans, certainly not describing Bush."

What I meant, of course, is that Bush doesn't make any decisions. Cheney and Bush's other handlers do that.

sit back and wait for the next attack instead of taking the battle to the enemy

wasn't this the point of 2004 and soon 2008? Remember, you Libs lost. It doesn't matter what you as an individual think, it matters what the majority of the voters think. We don't want to sit around on a clintonesque suicide watch, waiting for the next subway car to explode. taking the battle to the enemy is an effective policy.

"taking a poll or asking everyone else what they think first" - this is most like the clinton policies, even vacation plans, certainly not describing Bush. so the conclusion is you admire Bush?

"record shows that the collective wisdom of the voters is poor" - not really - they learned that carter was inept quickly enough and voted for bush and reagan twice. sounds pretty wise to me. and hillary is down 7 points in the last poll. you can't fool all the people all the time.

KOZ,

I don't believe that they did the right thing. The herd mentality was widespread in the country at the time, and they ran scared (as politicians are wont to do).

Same thing with the Patriot Act a year earlier. I was afraid it would happen before it did. The folks in Washington had to "be seen doing something."

Please remember to ignore the trolls.

Posted by: Zookeepress

Is it possible to ignore yourself?

"I know you think leaving the country on any military expedition is un america"

Bzzt. Gulf war I was Ok, as we did the necessary diplomatic work before stomping on Saddam & didn't overextend by going all the way to Baghdad. Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan met the same criteria.

"we, the voters tend to disagree and the results of the elections prove that you are in the minority when you want us to sit back and wait for the next attack instead of taking the battle to the enemy."

For starters, I doubt you represent all the voters. Even if you do, I make up my own mind, rather than taking a poll or asking everyone else what they think first. The record shows that the collective wisdom of the voters is poor, at best. When I studied management we called this 'groupthink.'

"I can only guess your analysis would extend to the 70+ Senators who voted for war and also overreacted."

It does. Especially if they didn't read the NIE first & particularly if they admit to not reading the NIE first. I call that dereliction of duty.

"I wish you Dems would take an econ course before obviously embarrassing your selves"

That's a Laff(er)!

bsimon _ I know you think leaving the country on any military expedition is un america, but we, the voters tend to disagree and the results of the elections prove that you are in the minority when you want us to sit back and wait for the next attack instead of taking the battle to the enemy.

I can only guess your analysis would extend to the 70+ Senators who voted for war and also overreacted.

Or maybe they did the right thing and it was hard and the wimpy Libs now decide it better serves their electoral interests to just give up. sounds more likely.

Truth Hunter writes
"For those who say the GOP candidates haven't flip-flopped on the issues and aren't distancing themselves from Bush, a reminder:"

Truth- I don't argue the flippity-flopping allegation. However, I do not see much 'distancing' going on by the GOP candidates - neither in your list of mild rebukes nor anywhere else. Ron Paul excepted, of course. The front runners certainly aren't yet distancing themselves much from Bush/Cheney - because they're pandering to the base, which still - largely - supports the misguided policies of Bush & Cheney. We won't see the full flips & flops until their nominee starts to try and explain himself to the general election voters.

And Rudy, of sanctuary city fame, now thinks the tough approach to illegal immigration is what is needed.

No wonder your name is truth hunter - you never seem to find any.

Rudy was told by the INS that they would deport only 2000 per year. Was he supposed to deport them personally? do you Libs think government can solve every problem out there? He made a clear and concise statement to this effect. Try looking a little harder for the truth, you may find it on Fox or many other places if you really try.

proud writes
"As you may recall, Cheney's discussion of Gulf WarI was in 1994, and referenced the prevailing rationale at the time for limiting our efforts to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait."

I recall that very well, actually. However, where your analysis goes wrong is in buying into the argument that "We faced a post 9/11 world... [in which] foriegn policy and military decisions were and will be forever changed by that attack on our homeland."

In retrospect, it appears that, had cooler heads prevailed, we actually would not have gone into Iraq & become stuck in the very quagmire that 1994 Dick Cheney was worried about. What happened in 2001 was the Bush/Cheney team got caught with their pants down and overreacted.

For those who say the GOP candidates haven't flip-flopped on the issues and aren't distancing themselves from Bush, a reminder:

In the Drake debate two weeks ago:

Romney said he wasn't "a carbon copy of Bush and there are things I would do differently."

About the Bush administration ideological centerpiece of forcing "Democracy" on other nations, Rudy said: "Maybe going to elections so quickly is a mistake. Elections held in Iran and the Palestinian terrirotires empowered hard-line forces unfriendly to the United States." And, they worked out well in Iraq too didn't they.

Brownback said that Bush had "over-relied" on Cheney.

After supporting Bush's amnesty program, Romney is now not just running away from it, his flip-flops are smokin' as he eschews the current state of affairs.

And Rudy, of sanctuary city fame, now thinks the tough approach to illegal immigration is what is needed.

But hey, this is the political silly "say whatever sells" season, and as Drindle points out, what they say is undoubtedly not what they will do.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"you must remember that about half the population is below average intelligence (most of them Dems)."

I thought the Grand Oblong Pair was the party of the semi-literate. Isn't bashing the liberal intelligentsia a long-running habit of theirs? Shoot, who needs brains when they have a hairy pair to think with?

" is that the same Iraqi Quagmire that Dick Cheney predicted, or a different one?"

bsimon - As you may recall, Cheney's discussion of Gulf WarI was in 1994, and referenced the prevailing rationale at the time for limiting our efforts to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.

Despite the many varied conspiracy theories and 'links' to halliburton, blah blah, blah, we faced a different situation than in 1994. We faced a post 9/11 world, which is NOT to say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but that foriegn policy and military decisions were and will be forever changed by that attack on our homeland.

Additionally, some of the lefties seem to convieniently omit recent history reagrding Iraq. Namely, the entire world believed he had WMD, even the liberals (Hillary) and the U.N. The complete and utter corruption of the Oil--for-Food program in which Saddam was buying off members of the U.N. in direct violation of international sanctions, which added to the suffering of the Iraqi people who were repressed, killed, tortured, raped and terrorized for over two decades.

Cheney's words are equally correct now: "That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey."

This is a perfect example of why legislating defeat in Iraq is an unnacceptable platform.

Loudoun,

I agree about Mitt. He's had to work a bit harder than Clinton, so I haven't felt that same sense of entitlement. But I'm sure it's there.

jhbyer,

I don't disagree with that. But CC still seems far too interested in the money chase to suit me (not to mention preoccupation with "polish"). It plays into that "inevitable" garbage that I was b*tching about earlier.

Mark in austin - you must remember that about half the population is below average intelligence (most of them Dems). and these are also the swing voters who don't decide who to vote for until the week before the election when Paris Hilton finally endorses someone. given that, and ignoring the calculating aspect, can you blame someone for gaming the system like that. at least in Bush/romney's case - it may be intentional. In Edwards case, he actually is really creepy and phoney and is now having trouble hiding it. and everyone knows hillary is the ice queen without a shred of real personality. Obama is nice and will finish last.

zouk - how did you find out all that stuff about me. are you wiretapping me? I knew it was someone.

The Fix's fixation on candidates' popularity to the neglect of issues is, as Chris has explained in past columns, in service of his purpose. His narrow focus gives insight into how candidates prevail despite issues that ought to drive elections. By advancing our political education, he arms us against politicians who use issues as props to be shelved except when campaigning.

Coffee break.

proud, David Brooks last week wrote that Romney is a very smart guy who dumbs down for the electorate.

While trying too hard to flash "smarts" just flashes outside academia, I used to think that "dumbing down" was not the way to get votes. Then I remembered that the GWB I voted for as Gov. in 1998 could speak in whole sentences and paragraphs, without droppin' all his final gs. He ran for Prez and became Mr. Malaprop. Frankly, that is what first made me think the Presidency was over his head and he was scared. But other people seemed to warm to it.

Could this work for Romney? I hope not.

Proud, I knew that wasn't you because it made no sense whatsoever. that characteristic (nonsense) is a good hint that the ignorant one is at play. but as you are well Aware he is "like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any." If he knows so much, how come he isn't an elected official instead of an Army drop out. and it is certainly no surprise he is long past two wives. who could tolerate that? He must have been very dissappointed he didn't make general right away with all that knowledge. no wonder he is answering phones now. he wasn't even worth a soak-off attack to the infantry - a waste of a good coffin. they just kicked him out on a section 8. Offered him free ice cream and off he went. now he has his days free between stuffing envelopes to visit blogs all day and post his famous nonsense under other actual people's names.

for some reason the extreme pathology amuses me - like a car wreck you can't peel your eyes from. I must stick to ignoring that fool.

I heard Leahy is going to be in the next Batman movie - does this make him the moonbat in chief or just lame old leaky leahy wishing he was a superhero with a costume and a cape?

J - it would seem that hillary does indeed believe in socialism and her own ability to make all decisions for the entire society. Perhaps the details are cloudy, as she must keep them to fool all the gullible Libs, but as you can see from this blog today, there is very little interest in actual Lib policies. If they admit it is their policies that keep losing elections, what will they blame it on instead next time - voting machines, fraud, theft, supremes - anything but what it really is.

J: Interesting dichotomy with Hillary vs Mitty, who might hold some beliefs but apparently will say literally anything to obtain the office for which he is running. His verified record of things he said while running for senator and governor in Mass. is pretty amazing.

ProudtobeGOP references
"The Iraqi Quagmire You Don't Hear About"

Remind me, is that the same Iraqi Quagmire that Dick Cheney predicted, or a different one?

Zouk,

It's hard to defend what you can't pin down. Clinton doesn't believe in anything, except that she wants to be President.

Of course, that's a disease that is far too widespread in both parties for comfort.

Loudon, indeed you are correct! I'd forgetten that bit of trivia - also that Dayton (who subsequently served 1 term in the Senate) also pursued that nomination. Of course, the GOP candidate in that race was subsequent (and current) Senator Norm Coleman.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199809/01_newsroom_poll/

"Attorney General Skip Humphrey continues to be the frontrunner in the race for the DFL nomination for Governor. But Mark Dayton has made surprising gains since last June's convention and moves into the #2 role. Endorsee Mike Freeman turns in unimpressive numbers. There's also trouble for Republican Norm Coleman who, while easily ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination, has been unable to overtake Humphrey, Dayton, and Ted Mondale on the question of hypothetical November matchups "

How prescient that concluding sentence looks now that we know the result....

Totally off topic, but this little history review is relevant to the recent discussion of Senator Coleman's chances next year. In statewide races, he's 1 for 2, and both of those elections have been very atypical, by any standard. The first saw a 3rd party candidate win the governorship, the next saw his opponent die a few weeks prior to the election.

Zouk,

Yes, we all know The One With No Name. Our tie to him is an infernal pact to which we are bound, but I must remind you to be careful of what you say in public. For example, such words as "moon" and "bats" might be a clue to our adversaries.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 20, 2007 03:42 PM

This is not my post! Go away ignorant coward.

now appearing at the Exit 53 Motel 6!

Zouk,

Yes, we all know The One With No Name. Our tie to him is an infernal pact to which we are bound, but I must remind you to be careful of what you say in public. For example, such words as "moon" and "bats" might be a clue to our adversaries.

maybe the moonbats are ignoring you, just like you're ignoring them.

You're like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any.

Posted by: hey zook | August 20, 2007 03:25 PM

pou are clearly a moonbat and you are not ignoring me. Dem logic or lies, take your pick. I think these moonbats are so confused they don't even know if it is disillusion or prevarication. I think we all know the moonbats are obsessed with zouk, attacking him, posting under his name, missing him when he's gone, checking on his timing, wondering about him - why doesn't anyone else get this preferred treatment? Only the moonbattiest know for sure. too bad even the Dems are sick of you now coward.

bsimon: Didn't that Humphrey vs. Mondale race also involve a Freeman?

seanfoots writes "Biden- wayyyy to aggressive for 8 AM and with George as the moderator...but he did show his experience. Again, he seemed to be pretty pissed about something, i dont know what, but..."

Two guesses sean. 1. He knows he's not getting the nomination, so he's pretty pissed about that, or 2. He's just faking it to try and get everybody to forget his earlier compliment of Obama:
"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

blarg notes
"Voting for someone because you recognize their family name is dumb. Voting against someone for that reason is also dumb."

A blogger from our local public radio affiliate makes regular jokes about one's likelihood to win election here if you have 'anderson' for a last name. Sadly the joke has some basis in reality. Only a couple years ago we had a Humphrey running against a Mondale for Gov (actually for the DFL endorsement); Ventura won that election...

maybe the moonbats are ignoring you, just like you're ignoring them.

You're like a little kid who demands attention and stomps his feet and cries and screams when he doesn't get any.

Proud - that wasn't me. I only go after fools and numbskulls and we all know who that is, despite him having no name. On second thought, continue ignoring moonbats works best.

Let's just call it the "depth of the intellect on the left". Still no takers on defending Hillary's policies.

zouk - mea culpa? I didn't see your post, but here is a link that I intended to paste.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTMxMDc1YzYxZGVlYjNlMGU3NmE0Nzk1ZGJjODgzOTI=

Regardless of my error, I am never one to disparage your intellect or wit. Keep 'em coming!

aversion to actual debate

now you have seized upon the Libs last resort - shut down debate - it's settled. notice not a peep about hillary's positions all day. no sense discussing it, she is inevitable and experienced and electable and........

and they wonder why they keep losing all the time.

Here is hwo the debate went

WINNERS
*Richardson- good strategy in centering in the Iraq debate.

*Obama- out-did Clinton and Edwards on just about every issue. Handled the "experience" attack led by THE MODERATOR very well. Probably gained some undecideds or HILLsupporters

THE OKers

*Clinton- didnt really answer the questions, but was still "polished". Didn't get that big of a dent in her campaign, but probably did lose some supporters to Obama

*Edwards- Seemed to get off-track. He was still good.

*Biden- wayyyy to aggressive for 8 AM and with George as the moderator...but he did show his experience. Again, he seemed to be pretty pissed about something, i dont know what, but...

LOSERS

Gravel- seems to get more and more cenial in every debate

Dodd- acted like he doesnt even belong in the senate.

Kucinich- took wayy to much time to complain. if your not getting enough time, fine. Take the time that you have to explain your policies

It is not unusual for sons and daughters to pursue the same career as a parent.

The Iraqi Quagmire You Don't Hear About

"When Iraq War critics employ loaded terms like 'quagmire' so freely, it's done in a manner that suggests aversion to actual debate on the realities on the ground. This can be best exemplified in Sen. Harry Reid's laughably premature declaration of defeat or Sen. Barack Obama's clumsy reasoning that genocide, as the likely result of impulsive withdrawal, should be of no concern to the United States.

Most importantly, such statements highlight an uncomfortable unwillingness on the part of many war detractors to see the situation in a rounder, fuller perspective - that victory is an option and that defeat isn't an exclusively American, or a partisan, problem....for now, momentum is on our side and not for our enemies."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=082007A

boko: yes, FDR and TR were distant cousins.

Let's also not forget the Longs of La.

I see the Libs are so flummoxed by the posting of actual positions, not only have they ignored them completely, they posted under my name and attacked one of the only sane individuals here. Yep, that's the Libs for you. No substance.

coward aka x , didn't you get the message that we don't want you around any more with your childish antics? even your own Dems have turned on you now and that is some feat.

Bokonon,

They were distant cousins and Eleanor was TR's niece.

Paul Tsongas' son is currently running for Congress in Massachusetts, to fill an open seat. Senator Ben Cardin's nephew Jon Cardin is now a state legislator in Maryland, and will probably run for Congress in a few years. Former Senator Paul Sarbanes' son John just got elected to Congress in Maryland.

Voting for someone because you recognize their family name is dumb. Voting against someone for that reason is also dumb.

Adamses, Lowells, Lodges, and Chafees of New England.

I am beginning to wonder what it will take to get some of the lower tiered Dems and Repubs to go away. I appreciate diversity in the candidate pool, but this ain't that. how about some predictions on what event will cause the next candidate to drop out? will we actually have to wait until the first real vote?

I can only guess that gravel and kucinich have no staff and hence need no donations. what about the rest? did gravel take the bus because he only had 20 bucks for the ticket?

JimD, weren't Teddy Roosevelt and FDR also distantly related?

Udalls of the Rockies.

Borens of Okla.

proudtobeGOP, I am surprised at your plagiarism. The "tax-free unicorn" line is mine! (see above) Normally you are smarter than the other dumb Libs on this blog, but to steal someone else's ideas without attribution is just like a Lib.

It seems I stand alone. I always knew I was one of the smartest on this blog - now I think I might be the only one.

Daleys of Chi.

Loudon,

During the last century we also had the Roosevelts of NY and CA (FDR's son James was a Congresman from CA for ten years), the Rockefellers of NY, Arkansas and West Virginia, the Browns of California, even the Wallaces of Alabama and, of course, the Kennedys.

Hillary Clinton will cause the democrats to lose this election and be the reason the GOP keeps the white house and this nonsensical war going.

I have voted democratic for the last 20 years but I will NOT vote for HRC and her political attack machine. The lobbyists own her, she can't answer any question, she has no more experience in elected office than Barack Obama unless you include her 8 years as the 1st lady.

If the democrats want to take the white house they need to wake up soon and start lining up behind their only chance.

Barack Obama is the democrats only chance and is also the best chance this country has for change and hope for a better future.

These debates are getting ridiculous and Gravel for one needs to step down, stay home and quit making a fool of himself. Chris Dodd is the next one who needs to go back home and do whatever it is he does best.

Barack Obama is the only one up there actually "thinking" about the ramifications on the country when he answers a question. The rest are scripted and programmed to answer the best way that suits them at the moment at the debate they are in.

Obama took his message of raising fuel efficiency standards to Detroit for goodness sake. Talk about saying the un-popular thing to a group of voters, but it was the RIGHT thing to say. HRC would never have dreamed of doing that.

If Hillary is the democratic nominee I'm likely voting republican. Speaking of republicans, Mike Huckabee is the only one they have who is answering questions honestly, who is not pandering to the crowd and the only candidate on either side, besides Barack Obama who deserves to be considered for president.

Trim these debate fields down to a number where the candidates can give more than 60-90 second answers and lets see how HRC fares against Obama.

Give me an Obama / Richardson ticket and I'll give you a winning combination.

There really hasn't been anything memorable in the Democratic debates since the first one, when after being asked about gun ownership, it seemed likely that Senator Gravel would pull a handgun out of his suit jacket.

The rest of the time, they all try to out-do each other in saying "And the day I'm elected, the troops will be home from Iraq by three o'clock, the big corporations will hand out free cash on street corners, every family will get a tax-free unicorn, and the rivers of chocolate will be fat-free!"

J: This country has always had a "warrior class" -- it shouldn't be too surprising that it also has a "political class."

Don't forget -- Romney's father sought the presidency 40 years ago himself; it's not just Bushes and Clintons. Look at the Tafts of Ohio. The Fishes of New York.

Other people have to step up; that's all there is to it. That the same names keep coming up doesn't make it a sham democracy; the people still control who wins and who loses.

Kay,
I might agree with you except with Clinton.

SHE may or may not win against a given GOP candidate.

But when a supposedly democratic nation of 300 million people looks to only two families for leadership over an entire generation, we all lose.

Whether one likes her or not, we all lose in such a sham "democracy".

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Former Sen. John Edwards on Friday fired the latest round in his ongoing verbal feud with Ann Coulter, calling her a "she-devil" at a public event before quickly adding that he shouldn't engage in name-calling. (I shouldn't insult fox after taking $800K, shouldn't insult hedge funds after taking $500K, shouldn't give poverty speeches at $500 per head, shouldn't kick-off campaign in NO when I own foreclosure company, shouldn't talk about housing when mine is the biggest in the state, don't want sympathy for my wife but include it on the fundraising letter, the list is just too long for this phony)

Edwards, D-N.C., was railing against the right-wing media -- including Fox News and Rush Limbaugh -- when he reminded a crowd in Burlington, Iowa, that his wife stood up to Coulter in a public spat earlier this summer.

"We know these people. We know their game plan. They're going to attack us personally," Edwards said. "They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter. ... I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."

first he removes his people from Nevada. now he is going after coulter again with his wife as front man. He must be the back door gal then. sorry Breck girl, time to flush the John. are you so desperate now you are attacking lobbyists, using coulter to raise money and getting your wife to do your dirty work.

Imagine a President hiding behind his sick wifes skirt. too funny when hillary is the most masculine of the Dem candidates. and edwards is the best looking girl.

Radical Patriot, if you are the same poster who supports Ron Paul, despises the Federal Reserve, and claims a Ph.D., I have serious questions for you.

1. Do you oppose a central banking system, or do you focus on the structure of the American central banking system, and in either case, why?

2. Do you favor a bimetallic money standard that would limit currency in circulation to the value of gold and silver in the Treasury of the United States?
If you do, what about the collapse of the money supply to three or four per cent of its current sum attracts you?

Don't get excited, the top tier is'nt going to change so concentrate on Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Regardless of who comes out on top, compared to ANY Republican candidate, they are winners!

I agree with most of the recent posts regarding Hillary. Her candidacy is entirely based on the idea of "inevitable." She wants a coronation based on Bill's name, before she is forced to answer anything or before she reminds people why they don't like her in the first place.

Same thing as the Senate race (2000), though she was more brazen then and would come straight out and say, "I'm not going to answer that."

And supporters pull out the polls that show 40-45% support. But polls (especially national polls) at this point reflect little besides name recognition. Clinton has nearly 100% name recognition and is still only polling in the low-40s against a group of people who probably don't have 50% name recognition (except Edwards due to 2004).

The folks here are paying attention to this thing (each in his/her own way). But much of the electorate isn't. Clinton's whole strategy is to be the only one left when the voters start to look.

blarg, I know you are desperate to claim a victory against zouk after so many failed attempts, but the fact is, and I pointed this out before, without US production of the chemical, there is really no world supply, so even if it is still technically legal in Africa, there is no supply.

I wish you Dems would take an econ course before obviously embarrassing your selves with proclaimed victories. Besides, aren't you much more comfortable claiming defeat?

JD writes
"I do not think the Democrats want to admit this, but they are somewhat charmed by Bill (even now, after what he did to squander his legacy) and are willing to do whatever it takes to 'get him back in the white house'"

Sadly, you may be onto something here. Is it possible the the pro-Clinton set is motivated my little more than sticking their collective thumb in the Republican eye?

What is even more bizarre, though, is that the media seems to merely repeat the 'experience' meme. Reporting apparently no longer involves actually digging into politicians' claims & verifying them - instead we just get the same old quotes over and over again.

After a brief trip to Iraq, Sens. Carl Levin and John Warner said Monday they are encouraged by the effects of the recent U.S. military surge there, "We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results.

Hey Harry, can you retire now? your congress is lost, lost I tell you.

I called it! A couple weeks ago, Zouk hauled out the new conservative attack on environmentalists, claiming that DDT bans have killed millions of Africans. I pointed out that DDT is still legal in Africa and many other places in the developing world, and is still widely used to fight malaria. He responded with pages of irrelevant citations from the right-wing echo chamber, but couldn't refute my basic facts.

At the time I predicted that not only would he ignore the fact that his position is completely wrong, he'd spout the same lies again in the future. And look at him go! What do I win?

Trotsky, the power behind the HRC candidacy is clearly the 2nd coming of Bill. You're right, she has done virtually nothing in the senate, no doubt because she does not want her fingerprints on anything that can be used against her in a campaign ad; partially the reason why senators have such a difficult time getting elected, or even nominated (see: Kerry, John; Edwards, John; McCain, John...hmmm, why are they all named John....?)

I do not think the Democrats want to admit this, but they are somewhat charmed by Bill (even now, after what he did to squander his legacy) and are willing to do whatever it takes to 'get him back in the white house'.

I can't find another logical reason why HRC would even have a prayer of getting the nom, let alone being the front runner. If someone does (Dems?), please advise.

Zouk is a fascist

It's distressing to hear people mindlessly repeat the mantra put out by the Clinton campaign that she has the most experience. This assertion is right up there with those many inane Rovianisms, such as, If you are opposed to the war, then you do not support our troops.

The HillBillies' campaign, like the Bush-Cheney junta, knows full well that if you just repeat the same lie over and over and over again and again, enough people will mindlessly repeat it and believe it as the truth. And you do not need to fool all of the people all of the time--you only need to fool enough of the people at the right time.

Many of you have expressed that bloated and surfeited feeling from the excess of these non-debates, and have threaten to tune out the entire tiresome campaigning. I fully sympathize, but that is exactly what the HillBillies want you to do. If you let them take the nomination by default, then you have betrayed your country. Hillary does not have the experience she wants you to think she has. She has no more than many others, and a lot less than some.

Blarg,at 12:49P;
I agree completely with your criticism of the "x" postings.

We all wish that stooge would depart.

Footnote : In an embarrassment to the industry, some staffers at a Seattle Times news meeting cheered when Rove's resignation was announced. To his credit, Editor David Boardman made the incident public and warned that staff meetings should not "evolve into a liberal latte klatch."

Major League Baseball was really embarassed by steroid use, and took steps to end it. MSM prefers to cover up.

This scientist calls DDT the best pesticide we have and tells why. What he doesn't do is indict the environmentalists who are directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of millions Africans. Who knows, one of those who children who died could have been the person who could have led his country of its insanity. You want to see how liberalism kills - there's not better example than DDT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I watched a lot of ball games in my day. do you think this qualifies me to try out for the Yankees?

what did she really have vast experience doing - crooked law in arkansas for 15 years. why don't we ever hear a peep about this? the rest of the time she spent running off bill's bimbo's.

I can't recall ANY bills that have the clinton name - like sarbanes - oxley or Mccain -feingold. I guess if you consider naming Post offices proper qualifications for president, then she is your girl. But please continue to ignore the issues, it is the Lib way.

One thing I sick of hearing is how much experience she had during the 90's fighting the extreme right wingers. SHE WAS THE FIRST LADY, not the president. She has used her hubby to pave the way for her run at the White House. To be honest, not one candidate on either side is worth a vote at this point.

Lunch!

Blarg,at 12:49P;
I agree completely with your criticism of the "x" postings.

Pat in Idaho - Joe Biden has a 30+ year career of being outspoken. He has put his foot in his mouth often and he will do it again. So what? He still grasps foreign policy with depth that the three front-runners will never gain between now and Election Day 2008.
You should play JB's recent one hour interview with Charlie Rose on your computer. If you are interested and cannot find it, I can supply the web address.

Rove said the GOP's chances in 2008 may be helped by the high negative ratings for Clinton and for the Democratic-led Congress. Congress' approval in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month stood at 25 percent, compared with 35 percent for Bush.

Nothing is meaningful for me until we deal with and fix the voting machine debacle.

Nothing is meaningful for me until we deal with and fix the voting machine debacle.

If I had to rank them without the media and corp. America telling me who I should like it would be:

1) Bill Richardson - For me he is still the best candidate. I just wish he would learn how to express his ideas a little better. He always looks like he struggles to find the right words
2) Chris Dodd - I think he is really comming out as a viable top candidate and he had a lot of good and straight forward answers
3) Dennis Kucinich - I know corp. America would never let him win but he is great for getting real ideas out during the debates
4) Barack Obama - I thought he was good but not as good as in the past
5) Hillary Clinton - I'm still waiting for her to answer a question
6) John Edwards - I don't have a confident feeling that he has full knowledge of what he is talking about
7) Joe Biden - Seems to change his opinion every time I watch him, he is the ADHD candidate
8) Mike Gravel - Not sure I fully understand his platform and he didn't get a lot out yesterday

Out of this group I find it hard to believe people think that Hillary, Obama and Edwards are the top candidates. Most money? Yes. Top candidates? Not even close.

I think the Republicans have a strong advantage in that the top candidates actually have the most money.

Blarg, thank you for pointing out the tired, useless and moronic views of the radical lefties. without honest dems like you, your party is doomed to these idiots. Send them back to Kos where they belong. I ignore that brain-dead wing of the party.

Hillary has nothing to offer to people,she is not a politician ,she is a Bill Clinton's machine.The reality is coming up now.........no ideas, no good mind , nothing and nothing and she is getting old 60 years old....

Zouk, how cool is it to be a legend in your own mind?

I knew none of you ignorant cowards and loud and dumb voters wouldn't dare take on an issue.

so you can all march down to the polls in lockstep without ever considering your candidates views. sounds entirely Liberal to me. "we don't need to think, debate or defend our power grab, we're Libs"

go ahead, pick one, I dare you to come out of your closet.

I'm so tired of anti-war people complaining when war supporters don't join the military. So what? We have a volunteer military in this country. It's their job to fight the wars. Someone's decision to join or not join is none of your business.

You can say that if these war advocates want someone to fight in Iraq, they can do it themselves. Why should they? Do you attack people who complain about crime but don't join the police force? Or people who complain about burning buildings but don't become firemen? Or people who advocate for new construction but don't pick up hammers? Of course you don't.

I'm completely and totally against the war in Iraq. But that doesn't mean that I like all the rhetoric used by anti-war commentators and groups, like whoever "x" is plagiarizing. This attack is a step up from the truly moronic "Would you send your child to iraq?" pseudo-argument, but that doesn't make it okay.

There are many, many reasons to oppose this war. Supporters of the war are some combination of dishonest, misinformed, greedy, or just stupid. So attack them on those points. Don't get sidetracked complaining that civilians can support military action and remain civilians.

hawkins has regurgitated last week's lengthy drivel-filled post. running out of material already, hawkins?

douchebag no matter what name you use.

Young Chickenhawk #4: Chris Bucovich

Organization: Freelance chickenhawk

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: Government "wants me to make money so I can pay for it." Author's note: Yes, he too really said that.

Young Chickenhawk #3: Ben Ferguson

Organization: College Republicans

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: "I support the Yankees, doesn't mean I wear their uniform." Author's note: Yes, he really said that in the video.

Cindy, thank you very much for that long post. It would have been much worse had you just posted a link to the original content; then we would have actually had correct formatting, and words that hadn't run together.

Young Chickenhawk #2: Jason Mattera

Organization: Young America's Foundation

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: Too busy "fighting the battle of ideas" here at home.

If "Hawkins" at 11:54A is John Hawkins he deserve the following replies. Wrong. Right. Wrong. Right. Then 4 wrongs. Then 2 rights. Then 3 wrongs.

"Collateral Damage: BethenaCindy Sheehan fromAmman, JordanLast month when Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ray McGovern andI took over 300 people and a petition with over amillion signatures to Congressman John Conyers (D-Mi,Chair House Judiciary Committee) demandingimpeachment, we believed we were morally correct then.Despite Rep. Conyers' long record of public service toour nation and several private meetings that wentabsolutely nowhere, and despite the mild to severecriticism we have received, we believed then and stillbelieve now that impeaching BushCo is aConstitutionally mandated requirement and a necessarytool to reclaim our representative republic, end theoccupations of Iraq and Afghanistan ("The troopsaren't coming home while I'm preznit," GWB), and tohold the monsters accountable who have wreaked havocon our planet.I believe what we did on July 23rd was the right thingto do because we are all required to be activeparticipants in our democracy. One of the reasons thatall branches of our government are so out of control,Dems or Repugs, is that we have been passive voterswho have allowed our elected officials to get awayliterally with murder for generations. The humanelement of "We the People" has been suppressed by thefascist elite and all but forgotten by an Americanpublic that has been lulled into an uncomfortableapathy by the "vast wasteland" of TV and itsbyproduct: a seductive, yet destructive consumerismthat has us constantly striving not only to "keep upwith the Joneses," but "smash the Joneses" in ourquest for more, more, more. We have thousands, if notmillions of Susie Soccer moms in their huge SUVs toNASCAR dad Nick watching high performing, gas guzzlingcars go round and round in circles wasting preciousoil for our dubious entertainment, while people aredying, being injured and displaced and while ourtroops receive no more support than a yellow magneticribbon on Susie's SUV.The Rev and I had another dose of reality the otherday and our actions in Conyers' office were confirmedfor both of us when we visited Bethena in al Jazeerahospital in Amman. An American fired mortar shell hit twenty-eight yearold, former Baghdad resident, Bethena on June 1st ofthis year. Her husband was also injured in theabhorrent attack and her mother-in-law andsister-in-law were killed. Due to lack of medical careat first, Bethena still has a large hole in herstomach. She was allowed to stay in an Americanhospital for 7 days, and then told she had to leave.With a smashed arm, broken leg, and another legamputated above the knee, Bethena had to make her wayto Amman for medical help with her sister. She laid inher bed gazing at us with pain-filled, yet very awareeyes and she graciously allowed us to look at herwounds and record them on film. The entire time wevisited with her, I couldn't help but reflect thatCasey would have been the same age as Bethena justthree days before she was mortared, if he hadn'talready been killed not too far from where Bethena andher family were hit.Besides the incontrovertible fact that Bethena was nothreat to the USA and we are occupying her countryillegally and immorally, her hospital bills arecosting the family 750.00 to 1000.00 a day and shestill requires two more surgeries. The family had tosell their home in Baghdad and is rapidly goingthrough their savings. Bethena's sister told us that awoman who suffered a heart attack from fright in thesame mortar attack had her bills covered by the US,but we won't cover Bethena's bills because she was hitby an American bomb!We are going to the American Embassy here in Jordan toask the same simple question: "Why?" Why is thegovernment who harmed her not paying her bills?" andshe is just one of thousands. As the war crimescompound in Iraq, the resistance heightens and no onewins in "lose-lose" land.My campaign for Congress' slogan "People BeforePolitics" is the exact opposite of what John Conyerstold me and my staff in a meeting prior to the July23rd sit-in: "It is more important to me (Conyers) toput a Democrat back in the White House in '08 than toend the war!" (Even if it is Hillary "If Saddam won'tdisarm, will we disarm him" Clinton") I can guaranteehim that it is not what's most important to Bethena,the people of Iraq and the thousands of mothers in ourown country who can't sleep at night, concentrate, eator do much else for worry of their son or daughter inIraq for the lies of BushCo and the criminalcomplicity of Congress, Inc.I wept in John Conyers' office that day as I wept overBethena and her plight.We the People have also failed our soldiers andBethena and rest of the innocent citizens of Iraq byallowing the partisan politics of greed anddestruction to hijack our country. I wish everyAmerican could peer into Bethena's eyes and have anepiphany that there are many things more importantthan partisan politics as usual. I wish news cameraswould show an American mother falling on the groundscreaming in agony for her needlessly killed child. Wesee the devastation on Jordanian TV caused in NorthernIraq where over 500 people were slaughtered yesterday:we need to see that on our TVs.Then maybe, just maybe, this monstrosity would end.
"

Some time ago, I wrote an article called "The Young Chickenhawks." In it, I profiled a number of loud-mouthed, well known warmongers--all of whom were still young enough to enlist, but still too afraid to go fight. Today, we're going to take a look at some other prominent Iraq War-supporters--but this time we're going to focus on the under-30 crowd. For me, this is the most entertaining type of chickenhawk--because the younger the chickenhawk is, the more hilarious the excuses for not serving become.
You may be familiar with a couple of them, and two of them you may not know. But either way, you should find this fascinating--and you should continue finding ways to heap scorn on these cowards.

Young Chickenhawk #1: Matthew Continetti

Organization: The Weekly Standard

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: Expecting war supporters to actually fight goes against the Constitution

I tend to agree with P. I think Richardson and Biden were clear winners yesterday. HRC and Dodd (didn't you remember, Chris, the black fly that landed on his Romney-style hairdo?) were okay, and Obama showed his rhetorical skills but again lacked substance.

No question that he's a talented public speaker. But as someone pointed out, Obama's more of a preacher than a statesman.

Let's persuade Gravel to go back to Alaska and run against Ted Stevens. Radical Dennis was at far left for a reason.

Did anyone notice wedapeople have spoken KUCINICH won the poll on the debate.

I am voting for KUCINICH he reflects my values. KUCINICH supports diplomacy, consistently opposed the immoral war in Iraq. He does not take contributions from corporations. Cutting wasteful defense spending to fund education is a positive direction. His health care plan is carefully planned to take out the profit of insurance companies and providing health care to all. I watch these debates hoping KUCINICH will be treated equally with an opportunity to state his stand on the issues. The God question had no place in this debate with all the other important issues facing our nation.

With five incumbents already calling it quits, speculation is turning toward who could be next for the demoralized and underfunded House Republican minority.

Topping retirement watch lists is 18-term Ohio Rep. Ralph Regula, who at 82 is the second-oldest member of the House. Regula, who represents the 16th District in and around Canton, has filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that would give him the option to seek re-election if he so chose. Regula has not announced a decision about his political plans.

Regula did say in a recent local radio interview that Ohio was trending Democratic these days and that it was unlikely that the House Republicans would regain the majority anytime soon.

hawkinz/zouk

sure have lots of time on your hands, don't you? ttoo bad you don't have a life.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.

The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:

_Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.

_Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.

_Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.

Please remember to ignore the trolls.

BionicWoman says
"[Hillary] shows she is thinking and planning how to get SOMETHING done."

From what I can tell, she's still thinking about how she should have voted in 2002. Wake me up when she's reached a conclusion on how that vote will best serve her Presidential ambitions.

.

drindl

I agree with you on the Republican candidates not offering an alternative to Bush's Iraq policy except to imply that they would be more competent. They are playing to the base right now and the base, for the most part, still supports Bush. What will be interesting to see is how these positions evolve if the situation in Iraq does not drastically improve.

Mark asks
"Hi, bsimon, did you read

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin "

Not yet. Sometimes it takes me a few days to get through the Sunday NYT. We had all-day rain here yesterday, and I still didn't manage to read the whole paper.

I'll bet you are somebody's second ex-wife...

Personal note to BionicWoman:

Are you my second ex-wife?

Coulda-Woulda-Shoulda: What the heck was so good about Obama's answer to how we are going to get out of Iraq?

Blame-Blame-Blame! Yeah, right. That was a real inciteful argument. The same old Poopy point. I don't care and I am sick of it.

I don't care about Hillary's negatives. She shows she is thinking and planning how to get SOMETHING done.

The analysis posted by "P" is correct. Thank god not everyone in America is brain dead or so locked into supporting their preferred candidate that they can't think straight.

My one disagreement with this analysis is that Obama comes out the big loser if he is still playing defense at this point in the race (particularly if you are trying to appeal to the base and furthering your chances of bridging the divisive politics that alginates so many moderate and independents needed to win the general election). Nothing he has said or done gives anyone any real distinction that his judgment is more superior to anyone else's - the bellicose statements on the Pakistan issue really hurt him more than they think.

Wow, CC didn't say Hillary won the debate!

Now, the real winner here is Richardson, putting himself in the middle of the Iraq discussion with support from the die hard left. Ask Joe Lieberman about that! He could well have put himself in the top tier, considering his foreign policy and executive experience. Although Hillary, Edwards and Obama did nothing to damage themselves.

drindl: You are forgetting RON PAUL. He will win.

Consider the following:

Kyoto: Clinton is a supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, which would cause energy prices to soar and would seriously damage the American economy even though most environmentalists will admit that it won't significantly cut the amount of greenhouse gasses being produced by mankind.

Corruption: Her brother was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help get pardons from her husband. During Hillary's previous stay in this White House, trips to the Lincoln bedroom were handed out for campaign contributions. She actually drew up legal documents that were used in the Whitewater land scheme and she got away with being bribed through a crooked cattle futures deal. Hillary Clinton would be one of the most corrupt Presidents ever to sit in the White House.

Tax Hikes: Hillary is a diehard socialist and will certainly slow the economy down and take more money out of the American people's pockets with a tax hike. She has even voted against ending the marriage penalty and the child tax credit.

Amnesty and Open Borders: Hillary is a big supporter of comprehensive immigration reform for illegal aliens and with a Democratic Congress to help her, it's entirely possible she'll be able to succeed where George W. Bush failed with amnesty.

Losing Iraq: In 1975, Democrats deliberately delivered South Vietnam into the hands of the Communists by cutting off the aid and air support that we had promised them because the Dems believed it would benefit them politically. The result was a Communist takeover of Vietnam, genocide, an enormous loss of American prestige, and a crisis of confidence in our military that wasn't truly reversed until George Bush won the Gulf War.

If Hillary Clinton becomes President and we are still in Iraq, she will deliberately lose the war early on in her presidency because she will believe that she can blame it on George Bush. That will allow her to avoid taking on a politically unpopular war. The result of her actions would likely be a huge victory for Al-Qaeda, genocide, an enormous loss of American prestige, and a crisis of confidence in our military.

Disaster In The War On Terror: When Bill Clinton was in power, the 2nd Intifada started, Al-Qaeda launched terrorist attacks at America practically with impunity, he turned down an offer of Sudan to hand over Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan and India built nuclear programs right under our noses -- and we believe North