hey michael james

you dont think anybody actually read all that or cares what u think do ya?

hill 08

its a done deal.

Clinton duplicity - Exhibit B:

Let's also not forget her politically expedient explanation for her Iraq war vote.

Hillary has said "I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority."

Here is the truth, as reported by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in The New York Times Magazine earlier this year:

"Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting -- and that she now says she had favored all along.

"The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. Senators knew full well the wide latitude that they were handing to Bush, which is why some tried to put the brakes on the march to war. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, ''urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.'' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."

Here is the full text:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50712FD3F540C708CDDAF0894DF404482

It is a long article, so go to the sub-heading "A forgotten vote" for the details.

Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces -- serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides. Barack Obama had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President. Highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now..." as Hillary Clinton has been doing.

Barack had the same general information a lot of us did and he chose wisely, despite the prevailing political winds at the time. Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate.

Of course, she didn't need to read the entire NIE because the real reason she voted for the war in the first place was so that she wouldn't be vulnerable from the right when she was planning her presidential bid at that time. Now that she realizes that most of the electorate wants a different approach and the war was a mistake, she's trying to be the anti-war candidate.

She hopped on board the war train because she thought it would help politically, which is a very bad reason and is illustrative of the kind of flawed decision-making she will continue to display.

I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is a skilled politician and is adept at deflecting criticism and saying things her audience might like to hear, but her rhetoric is often in direct conflict with her actual votes or actions.

I am simply astounded that people take Clinton's word so much instead of actually looking at the record, especially certain individuals from the black/African-American community.

For example, her duplicity about HIV/AIDS. It was pretty ironic for Hillary to be endorsed by Magic Johnson and to have spoken out about HIV/AIDS funding before a largely African American audience when, in fact, as was reported in the Washington Post on August 23, 2006, Hillary led the effort to gut provisions in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006 (S. 2823) which would have fixed the increasingly unfair and outdated formulas that hurt African Americans, particularly in the rural South.

The bipartisan remedy to this problem, which would have ensured funding would follow the caseload instead of short-changing African Americans, had been supported by 19 of the 20 Senators on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- and Hillary was the lone "no" vote.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/8-reasons-hillary-clinton-could-never-be-a-second-black-president/

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:4iJdCFQIFyMJ:www.nationalbcc.org/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D358+hillary+black+hiv+funding+vote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

It is frustrating to hear so much about Hillary's so-called experience. I don't count "fighting" for however long she's been fighting as in her favor. What has she actually won as a result of her efforts? More importantly, why do so many people feel a need to fight her instead of working with her?

Can anyone point to something she, herself, has actually accomplished that benefited the public or anyone not named Clinton? I mean besides passing inconsequential bills that name post offices, congratulate championship college lacrosse teams or that no reasonable person could oppose, such as helping 9/11 victims.

She's leading the polls because not enough people are paying attention, so her name recognition and, misplaced nostalgia for the 90's cause a lot of people to respond with her name when they are asked about the primary. If she's so inevitable, then why do 60+% of Democrats want someone other than her?

My opposition to Hillary is not based on her personality or gender, it is based on her actions. That alone should be enough, but when you throw in the baggage from the scandals and her ability to rally the Republican base, it's a slam-dunk to not vote for her.

The WAPost video of the Harkin Steak Fry completely distorts what it was like to be there.

Over 3000 pre rallied with Obama across the street then march 20 abreast and 1/2 mile long to the Steak Fry entrance.

Thousands of Obama O signs, deafening chants of Obama! Obama! compared with very little support of Hillary, even Edwards had more support than Hillary.

Here's our photos from the event (view as slideshow to see them in order from Obama pre rally, to march to Steak Fry):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13848490@N06/

WAPost has been pushing Hillary at us for over a year but the first in the nation caucus state of Iowa is not listening, they are behind Obama all the way!

Trudi sounds like a crafted fake personality. All those personal details so early on, about living in the Midwest, having a husband, having lupus so "she" cares about health care, it just doesn't seem Fix-like. Apologies if I'm wrong, but a heads up in case. It's a wild world out there with lots of creative liars. I guess I shouldn't post this because it will just teach the liars how to do their job, but it's always an arms race isn't it.

"So I'm not lying and propogating as zouk proud and so many do. My points are correct. So why do I have to get hate from you people all day everyday?"

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal? You aren't always right? Remember when we got a day off because you were so wrong about...what was it...French involvement in the American Revolution?

Mark, it's an interesting article, but not from an independent source. What's best for the average German is probably not the same thing as what is best for Deutsche Bank.

Now, health care policy was never one of my main interests and so I'm a bit laggy on the particulars but here's my understanding. Germany has a single payer system, the citizens insurance. HRC's plan requires individuals and companies to work within the existing insurance system to provide health insurance for everyone.

That seems better to me.

I am one of those sought after INDEPENDENTS in a contested state. I really hope the Democrats are listening: I won't vote for a Democratic ticket with Mrs. Clinton on it in either position. Period. I might not vote Republican, but I would rather write in my choice of candidates than give my vote to Mrs. Clinton. I do not trust her. And I don't know whose voice irritates me more, hers or President G.W. Bush's.

One reason Dems think Hillary is most electable is the Clintons are the only Dems who ever won. Besides the Clintons, we've been a joke in Presidential elections for decades. With all respect to O/E, I think they would just be another Dukakis Mondale Gore type 'beautiful loser'

The Anti-Hillaries love to make up fictions like it's just name-recognition or it's just nostalgia for Bill. She's the most exciting Presidential candidate in my lifetime. Pragmatism is her vision -- producing results, beating Republicans. One poster is tired of choosing the 'lessor evil'. I'm tired of losing elections to George Bush.

I could go on and on why specifically I love Hillary, but I'll just say this. When she speaks, I learn things I didn't know. When the others speak, they say things I agree with but don't teach me anything. Like the YouTube debate, I could have given the same answer Obama gave - 'George Bush is dumb for not talking to Iran'. Obama talks like a blogger, Hillary talks like a tough, proven infighter.

canada.com report at

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/09/18/jonathan-kay-on-canada-s-private-health-care-revolution.aspx

Excuse me, "fromCanada.com," you made two mistakes. The first is factual: most advanced industrial democracies supply their citizens with some form of health coverage. Only in the U.S., which perhaps not by coincidence is NOT ranked near the top in outcomes, are citizens required to spend anywhere from 25-80% of theur after-tax dollars to give HMOs the right to determine when and how well they will be treated.
The second mistake follows from the first, but it is in word choice this time. You speak of the Canadian government "permitting" its citizens to pay for their own health care out of pocket. The verb you're looking for is "forcing," although compelling" would also work.

But its not a national election, its 51 state elections and Clinton starts out giving up one more state than Kerry initially gave up, Florida.

A few years from now, when Canada finally joins every other free nation on earth by permitting citizens to pay for their own health needs with their own money, we will look back and say: Why did that take so long? We have known for years that the financial burden of our single-payer health system is unsustainable.

Also, to "Jan" - I am not a 'Clinton Hater.' How could I be? I don't know her personally.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I have a real problem with the presidency being batted back and forth between the Clintons and Bushes for 24 years... it ain't democratic. I would be willing to overlook that if I found Hillary to be inspiring, visionary, and REAL. I don't. She is an intelligent and skilled politician, and her end-all + be-all seems to be winning the presidency. While I don't deny that by virtue of what the office and race are, EACH of the candidates has got to have a healthy ego, I tend to gravitate toward the candidates who have ideas that are bigger than themselves. That's Obama for me. You may disagree, and you certainly have that right, but Clinton to me is too shallow and too obviously ego-driven.
As I also said elsewhere, however, if she gets the nomination - and with the machine pulling for her from the get-go, the odds are very good - I will vote for her in the general election. And I'm sure she would be OK... it's just that I wonder if OK is good enough at this point.
Anyway, just to recap: I do not support Hillary, but I am not a "Hater." (I think she's on an ego trip - maybe that's too harsh, better to say "I think she's running for personal reasons rather than out of a conviction that she has the most of all the candidates to offer the country as president.") Yet I am not a moron.

As a moderate GOP, George Bush has been a disappointment to me personally. When I voted for him, I was hoping he would continue G.H.W. Bush's policies. However that has not been the case.
Bush has allowed the extreme right to take over the GOP. His decisions to lead us to war was disasterous.
I am willing to vote Democratic this election if the the Party nominates someone other than HRC. This may send childish, but I do not like dynastic approach. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? has no appeal to me whatsoever.
Moderate Republicans need to start to take back their Party. Vote with the Democrats whenever possible. Vote to give the troops longer breaks. Vote to start withdrawing our troops but maintain enough to train the Iraqis to protect themselves.
I miss the GOP of Rockefeller, Bush I, and Eisenhower. These men knew to accomplish anything was to sometimes compromise instead of cutting your nose off in spite of your face.

Rosemary, that's interesting about Obama. I think he's got more going on upstairs than any candidate since Paul Tsongas (primary '92)... maybe I take that back, because I'm too wiped to go over the mental attributes of all the candidates of the past 12 or so years. But he's really intelligent - smarter than Hillary? don't know, but I think maybe. What I keep tripping on with Hillary is the dynasty issue, especially after 8 years of Bush II. (probably the most disappointing sequel since Godfather III, although that should not be taken to mean that I equate George the First with two of the greatest American movies ever. George Sr. was more like "Married to the Mob" or sth else relatively inconsequential.)
But I digress... Hillary is certainly intelligent enough to do the job, and to Jan, who was so snarky toward 'Clinton Haters' earlier, I will say that if she is the Democratic nominee, I will support her. I will also say that I hope she is not the Democratic nominee. I really believe that Obama is one of those politicians who come around once in a generation, and I think that at this point in U.S. history, the 'tried and true' methods of governance are not going to serve our needs as they once did because the country's needs now are unprecedented - both at home and abroad. Also, for the first time in living memory, a great majority of voters see the need to address an environmental concern and are willing to pay MORE in taxes/utility bills/at the pump if need be to solve it. And the great issues of overpopulation/overexploitation of the earth's resources are not going away, and more and more people want that adressed as well. And I could go on about educational standards, the widening gap between rich + poor, the re-emergence of the deficit as a numero uno issue, the out-sourcing of US jobs and off-shoring of US companies (to avoid taxes) and the current administration's unwillingness to do anything about either... but I guess my overall point is, this is a time in US history when we need, deserve, and ought to demand a SMART president, and one who will put the country's needs before every political concern. I think all the frontrunners (and McCain, who used to be a frontrunner) are "smart," but of them I think the one least blinded by and in thrall to ego/ambition is Obama. I could be wrong, but that's my call.

Way to go Hillary! I can't wait to see how this election turns out.

I have never heard mentioned in the press that there is hardly any poll, national or state, that does not show Hillary with a lead greater than the combined total of Obama and Edwards. Indeed, the most recent Gallup poll showed Hillary's lead as greater than Obama's, Edwards's, Richardson's, Biden's, and Kucinich's combined. She simply wears well. As people get to know her, they trust her abilities. I think she's the best candidate for president in either party in a generation, and I think the Republicans have good cause to worry about their ability to control the White House after 2008.

Jan: Easy one for you. Take any set of two and get them to equal the same by adding or multiplying them.

JasonL, bsimon criticized mandatory EMPLOYER BASED coverage [1:31P].

The problem for American industry in competition with Europe, Canada, and Japan, is the burden of health plans, according to many, including bsimon.

German health care is not employer based, correct? You would be interested in this:

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000198021.PDF

I don't know why the National polls keep showing Hilliary as the annointed one. I think the news media, pundits, etc. are trying to call the election in her favor. Why would this country want the the presidency concentrated in the hands of 2 families, by the time it is over with will be 28 years. That is a life time for some of us. I don't feel Hilliary is the best candidate we have out there to be PRESIDENT. She certainly is the not the most experienced. What are Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Chop Liver? When did being the spouse of someone make you that person, or being in the White House 8 years. Anyone drafting Laura Bush for President?

I think Sen. Obama would make an excellent president. But I also feel there are some inherent biases against him in the media and punditry corps in general, not all. Since I am a political junkie, I can see it in some of the pundits' body language. I hope people wake up before it will be "buyer's remorse". Bill and Hilliary had their time in the whitehouse. We are also seeing some of the business as usual if she gets elected as a Washington Insider. Is this the future we see in the country? Can we look to the future and not the past. Their time has passed. I say move on to new and real change. Obama '08. He is also doing better than the polls are giving him credit for.

Why was there no mention that Obama has more military campaign donations than any of the other candidates.(See Huffington Post). It tells me a story. How about some of you pundits?

"arithmetic" - NOTED.

Very slick Chris. You didn't mention one word about matchups with Republicans - which John Edwards leads.
Republican strategists have even admitted Edwards is the candidate they fear most - and Fox News has been targeting him from the gitgo.

It would be absurd and immoral to vote to return an adulterer to the White House - and Republicans are eager for a repeat.

opps! I despise anonymous posters.
That was me.

Mark in Austin --
Thanks for the welcome. I read CC all the time. Saw him on tv the other night. Chris, if you're reading this ... nice shave and suit, dude.

LOVE Austin. Did a few classes at UTSA. My mom lives there now.

Sorry, I was sort of just pulling the chuckle-chain on the Bleeding "Heart" Liberals thing.
However, I LOVE math, so please note that I said "arithmetic."

For what's it's worth, I absolutely agree with a wiser person than me that geometry is the language of God.
But, then again, geometry is poetry. :-)
Best!

I just read the bad news about Webb - Hagel.
Again, I find it devastating. I really thought it would get to 60 this time.

re: "Jan, Now you and I have found our common ground. I support Senator Obama and have crossed my traditional lines to do so, for many of the reasons you have listed. Posted by: Jim | September 19, 2007 06:48 PM"

Cheers! :-)
~ a Guinness gal myself ~
(Scots Irish - "Born Fightin'")

And, damn, if the friggin' REPUBLICANS didn't just block Jim Webb's bill in support of our troops!!

[Opps! I don't mean to offend you, Jim, but THESE Republicans are NOT Republicans. Sorry.]

Jan, welcome to the blog. I recommend "Induction and Analogy in Mathematics" by George Polya, a two volume classic, in your university library. You can understand Vol. 1 with only a solid recollection of trig. Some of Vol. 2 would be accessible only if you have had some calculus. Advanced mathematics is not purely deductive. You might find the science of inductive reasoning analogous to what a social scientist could call "intuition".

My take on "feeling" vs. "thinking" in politics is that ideologues "feel" and pragmatists "think". In the English language as we knew it once upon a time, reactionaries and radicals emoted while liberals and conservatives debated. In religion, Fundamentalists "feel" and Modernists "think". Fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Moslems have more in common with each other than they do with their co-religionists in name only Modernist Jews, Christians, and Moslems.

lyle, I continue to give money to Biden and I have suspended my giving to McCain, for now. I am not a big donor - $25 per week. I have not ruled out HRC, but she did not comport herself in a statesmanlike manner during the hearings last week; of course, neither did McCain.

"There would be no america with people like me."

without. that is.

For all you gop'ers hate of the french AND the enlightenment period. America would not exist without both of those factors. So to hate them is to hate america. If you hate freedom gop, you came to the wrong country. Please leave. Start over in austraila. It used to be a jail. You'll all feel right at home.

I will store your ignorance and hate for you jason. that is. Attack me all day. It jsut shows independant thinkers your level of intelligence. If I was lying, if I have my facts wrong, somebody would tell me, no? How many times have you seen that?

So I'm not lying and propogating as zouk proud and so many do. My points are correct. So why do I have to get hate from you people all day everyday?

My viewpoint on said facts. I would argue the "responsible" "conservative" "fiscally repsonsible" people are the one's who have got us in this hot water the last 30 years. Not me. Not an anonymous poster. Give your venom to those taht deserve it.

The left is used to getting beaten, killed, arrested, mocked, tasered for our point of view. We're used to it. We speak truth anyway. What do you gop'ers have to sacrafice to speak your garbage? You get paid. OOHOOHOHOOHOH. wow. You people are so tough.

As I said earlier today. Charater and intergrity come from sacrafice. The left has sacraficed. Over and over again for generations. Why? our polical philosiphy? I think the gop should suffer for theirs, but they don't.

Read the bible again. The detroying the money changers. Feeding and healing the poor. Living a rightous lifestyle.

Socailism? Read Karl Marx. Read about philosophy. Read about the enlightenment period. There would be no america with people like me. Where were the sell-out fascist capitalists in america in 1776? They didn't exist. The founding fathers were liberals.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

the GOP is a cult. A party of hypocrites. You have a year and a half. Your party is facing being obsolete. Use you rtime wisely. You are wasting it.

Right jason. I'm a partisan american. I'm a partisan independant. I'm not a democrat. I am with them on many issues, but their spineless. I am a free man. Why would I want to put a label on myself? If the d's held bush's feet to the fire and started giving his cronies 30 yeears each for treason, I might change my mind. They can't even get Scotter more than a number of months, and not even that.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself jason. As you know I can take your attacks and hate. I am a christian. I can do that for you. I will store you r ignorant and hate for you

re: Posted by: roo | September 19, 2007 06:00 PM

I find this interesting, this pidgeon-holing of "Liberals."
I doubt I'm a Liberal, but after GWB, I have no idea what a Liberal OR Conservative is anymore.

I'm a... compassionate... progressive... capitalist, how's that?

Anyway, I volunteered for Dean's campaign until he dropped out of the race, and I supported him because he was SMART. Everything he said was just incredibly logical.
The scream? Whoever cared, they're the emotional ones. The scream didn't set the Deaniacs back; it set everyone else back. So be it. In his words, he was right and they were wrong.
So, imo, Howard Dean's draw is his brainpower.

Personally, I don't think Howard Dean ever actually wanted to be President. I think he wanted to shake the country awake, like Michael Moore or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Keith Obermann. I think Dean wanted the job he has now, doing exactly what he's doing right now, organizing the Democratic Party. He took the Party into all 50 states in 2006, and the Party won their first election in years (not counting the 2000 Selection).

But moving on:
You said: "Liberals, broadly, seem to favour...

~science (head) over faith (heart) =
AGREE

~equal distribution of income (head--"Us, not me") over winner-takes-all (heart--"me me me") =
DISAGREE
imo, equal distribution of income is heart, compassion; and winner-takes-all is head, conniving

~nuance (head) over black-or-white (heart)=
DISAGREE!!!!
Nuance is what poetry is - heart. Black & white is what arithmetic is - head.

~allowing a multitude of opinion (head) over a single dogma (heart)=
AGREE if the dogma is believed without using the brain God gave the dogmatic.

~freedom (head) over authoritarianism (heart)=
DISAGREE
Again, freedom is poetry (heart) and authorianism is arithmetic (head)

~realism (head)over fearmongering (heart)=
AGREE
...especially if the fearmongering is over dogma that people adhere to without using their brains.

Have I given it some thought, or am I going by my gut? :-)

Any other "compassionate progressive capitalists" out there? Who are you supporting for President?

A belated welcome to Trudi.

RadPat is right about the commenter's here. There are many with differing (though still valid) viewpoints. Mark in Austin, JD, Jim, Dave!, and many others. We also have our share of trolls like Rufus and King of Zouk and the various anonymous posters. I've found that the only way I can enjoy these comment sections is by ignoring those from people I know to be trolls and all anon posts and focusing primarily on the good posters. I recommend the same to others. Rufus and Zouk and be fun to engage sometimes, but they're generally too partisan to have a decent discussion with (no offense or, at least, not much intended).

bsimon, I think it was you saying that mandated coverage was a huge flaw in HRC's health care initiative. I'm not sure that's true. It's been shown to work in some countries. Germany, for instance, has mandated coverage. In fact, when I was an exchange student for a month there, I had to buy insurance for my stay. There can be some issues seeing the most highly regarded specialists and some of the rarer specialties as well, but it seems to work out well enough. Of course, they also pay for 100% of university tuition at state schools. But they started WWII, so it's not all roses.

FYI: :-] is how to make a happy face. Lets all try and have one.

Jan,

Now you and I have found our common ground. I support Senator Obama and have crossed my traditional lines to do so, for many of the reasons you have listed.

Obama is still on my short list. But, will he drive the downsizing of government? Will he cut programs, bureaucracy and waste? Reagan campaigned to reduce welfare and increase personal responsibility. Bill Clinton, to my surprise, signed the welfare reduction policies into law. I believe the results have justified this philosophy of personal responsibility. We need more of that. Will Obama deliver?

The next inhabitant of the white house will need to cut, cut, cut and it will not be politically popular. Who among these candidates has the guts to make it happen? You can't tax your way to prosperity. Millions of boomers retiring and collecting SS, fewer workers paying into the system (unless you give citizenship to all the illegals, hmmmmm). Money's getting tight. We continue to raise the debt limit to cover our borrowing. Who's willing to be a one term president (potentially) by alienating the recipients of all the "benefit" programs - and it's not just the poor?

Hillary's proposing massive NEW spending. She's out. Obama is talking about tax CUTS - well OK as long as he cuts SPENDING 2 for 1. Giuliani has a decent record in NYC for cutting taxes and at the same time improving the safety, security and quality of life in NYC. He's on my short list, not for 9/11 but for how he transformed the mess that was NYC. Talk is cheap, results matter.

"We need change. I'm not talking about fine tuning spending programs and tweaking the tax code at the margins. We cannot sustain the path we are on, both from a social welfare perspective and foreign policy (war) perspective. [Give Alan Greenspan a listen]. Electing the same old bunch of clowns- lifelong politicians - will get us nowhere. We need visionary leaders, not another corporate sponsored puppet, to lead us back to being a shining city on a hill.

Peace!

"

:-) Great minds think alike

I think obama would pull many traditional republcians to our side, if only once. The right has been waiting for an african-american candidate like him, he just happens to be a dem. I just hope he is real and not going to sell us out. I don't think he would. The stakes are to high both for the party and the country. Like I said above, if the dem's screw this one up, there will be no second chances.

Isn't that the goal of a uniting candidate. Pull votes from both sides. The clinton lovers say she can do it, but the right doesn't have the hate for obama they do for clinton. That is why I think the right is trying to force the d hand. Also with the fox money to clinton. Also with fox talking about her daily, if they feared her like obama they would barley mention her.

"am I a moron,"

You transposed subject and verb, rufus.

good to hear Jan. But If I am a obama supporter and a clinton hater am I a moron, based on that. Me being a moron is debatable, and it is, daily. Come over to the right side Jan. Forget Hillary. Mitt and Rudy are their for the moderates. Give us a change candidate, otherwise we're looking at same old vs same old. Obama for change. Obama gore 08

I thought the NBC/WSJ poll showed that Republicans were most comfortable with Obama and Clinton was in 4th place in that question. While democrats (and the media) may perceive her to be more electable, the question is who will get the support of some dispirted republicans (I think Obama) and who will unify an otherwise divided Republican party to turn out against her(I think Hillary).

Roo - more like liberals prefer convenient and fake science when needed (global warming), equal outcomes despite effort (socialism), nuance to avoid decisions and responsibility, confusion and chaos over organization and logic, strict message discipline despite reality (surge is a failure), avoidance of unpleasantness (social security, war, budget), cowardice and megalomania.

JD--"The analogy you draw, Mark, about Kerry is a good one. Howard Dean was the emotional choice (and the Dems make decisions emotionally, mostly), but Kerry was the 'safer' choice."

Sometimes I wonder about you.

Liberals, broadly, seem to favour science (head) over faith (heart), equal distribution of income (head--"Us, not me") over winner-takes-all (heart--"me me me"), nuance (head) over black-or-white (heart), allowing a multitude of opinion (head) over a single dogma (heart), freedom (head) over authoritarianism (heart), realism (head) over fearmongering (heart) etc.

How you come to your conclusion is beyond me. Unless you are not thinking about it, just going by your gut?

Rufus - Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton? I gotta trust the American people not allow two families to control several decades of our politics, despite the pumping from the press. At the end of the day people will vote. Let's hope more than 48% show up on election day. If you don't make your voice heard, if you don't vote you'll get the government you deserve.

We need change. I'm not talking about fine tuning spending programs and tweaking the tax code at the margins. We cannot sustain the path we are on, both from a social welfare perspective and foreign policy (war) perspective. [Give Alan Greenspan a listen]. Electing the same old bunch of clowns- lifelong politicians - will get us nowhere. We need visionary leaders, not another corporate sponsored puppet, to lead us back to being a shining city on a hill.

Peace!

Zouk, you should be ashamed. Parrying and thrusting with Jan has to be too easy for you.

Jim, I guess you don't know what a Clinton Hater is. You are NOT a Clinton Hater. And I'm almost sad that you can't hear what one sounds like. Anyway, they don't sound anything like you.

I, in fact, agree completely with this post:
"No way would I say anyone that did not support Hillary was stupid, to say so would indeed be stupid. Posted by: lylepink | September 19, 2007 05:01 PM"

I have no problem with anyone who doesn't support HRC. I have a problem with people telling me why I shouldn't, instead of why I should be FOR their candidates.

I like Michael Moore's healthcare plan better than Clinton's. Okay, that means I might like Edwards's better.
But Edwards got eaten alive by Cheney, and I don't think he's going to be able to handle the heat.
But to anyone who's for him... SUPER! If he can win the primary and the general, I think he will be superb.

I've heard Obama speak many times now here in New Hampshire. He's the best orator since JFK, and it's for real. But, again, I don't think he's going to be able to take the heat. He's my dream cnadidate for VP, and then a shoe-in for Prez in 2016 & 2020.
So, anyone who supports Obama... GREAT! If he wins the primary and the general, I think he will be superb.

I also don't hate Republicans. Not at all. Like Clinton, I was brought up in the northern suburbs of Chicago as a Republican. But this isn't the Republican Party of my parents.

The Republicans we have in Congress right now, betraying us?
Yeah, hate 'em.

I heard that maine. Since when did sean hannity have the power to mock and punk a presidential candidate and "go get him"?

paul got thrown under the bus. He was/is the only hope the GOP has at reclaiming it's past. To bad. I would like a Paul Obama race :).

As to the entire media, including this blog, in the tank for clinton. What worries me maine, is it is coming from both sides. Cnn, Msnbc AND FOX are all pushing clinton. Fox talks about her daily all day, you don't do that with a candidate you fear. Murdoch has had fund-raisers for clinton with almost nobody reporting it. The more I know the scared I get about this country. The mor eI learn about politics, the more I see that our entire media are liars and propogandists.

Back in nam the press was the fourth branch of government. Sacrafice, pain, hard work, risking their lives. What now? Sell-outs. Taking moeny from big oil big drug and defense contractors. Remember when newspeople cared about their credibility? No more.

We can fix it. Here are the senerio's as I see it.

1. The democrats win, go down the same road as the gop. Nothing chances. We are in the same enviornment for another 4 years. the american people are fed up and elect a third party and throw out one of the currents. Then proceed to drasticly change the country for the better.

OR

2. the democrats take over and deliver on their promises and change the country themsleves. distance themselves for the gop (right now the dem's are the only one's saving the gop. If they were real seperate parties the d's would crush the r's right now when their down. the r's did that for the last 20 years. the d's lack the spin.)

We'll see. but I want to know what country I'm living in. Are we a fascist nation or not. Nominating clinton says no to fascism, but doesn't. Then we wait four years to answer the same question. Screw that. Let's do this now. I promise. I am a former infantry soldier, bu tif we are a lying fascist nation many americans will flee the persecution like our forfathers did.

PEace.

The reason I would like to know who is your favorite at this time is, when I gaze into my Crystal Ball at a later time and see how many of you disagreed with the "Old Man', when you know I'm on target, and just want to argue with me now, for arguements sake.

"We simply can't live in peace with them, no matter how strong that dream may be. We must play the hand we are dealt and finish cleaning up the world for everyone's benefit. that is what made and makes us great. the american army coming to town only strikes fear in the hearts of bad guys. to the rest it is symbolizes a new hope but perhaps not a guarantee.
"

It boils down to fear zouk. Who do we fear more. Most americans, now, fear you people MORE than the terrorists. do yo uunderstand that. The terrorists can't change this country. only we can. YOUR PEOPLE'S FEAR is destroying this country. do you fear the terrorists? Seriously? Do you fear a bunch of mule herders half way around the world? Really?

We just must make sure we are not arming them, like you gop'ers seem to be doing constantly. As long as they are stuck with ak's vs our bombs and jets, we have nothing to worry about. I have a suggestion if your scared. GEt all non-american citizen muslims out of this country. I hear over 8000 iraqis are living in america and going to eventually get citizenship. You don't want terrorists here, get them out.

So Jan - your defense is basically that everyone is corrupt so it is OK.

"the right direction / wrong direction numbers in the nation were at 70% RIGHT DIRECTION.
They are the polar opposite today."

so just like clinton , as long as the poll numbers look good then you are doing the right thing, defense, economy, taxes are irrelevant.

Because less tanks and free health care are very popular and besides it only effects the rich and succesful americans who don't show up in the polls. but that whole right/wrong thing is overblown anyway, as long as the polls are up.

the population of voters, who didn't know bin laden was trying to kill us can be trusted to determine our agenda.

Yep, that is clinton leadership for you. wait for a poll or even better, obama to do something first.

I completely understand why you are a hillary supporter. she does indeed represent you.

Sports marketing. Yes, I am smirking. Act real tough and demand I wipe that smirk off my face.

BTW:
FACT: Clinton was impeached for perjury
FACT: clinton had more convictions of his cabinet and administration

Rufus - It stinks to high heaven. On that note, and getting back to the article that started all of this - electability; why isn't the "liberal" media more aggressive in their analysis of the justification for being in Iraq? The press is here to provide another check/balance on our government. Yet they are propping up candidates that are very moderate, like Hillary, on the invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are outspoken on this issue. Yet, the press does not champion these guys who are basing their positions on the core values and written values (Constitution, Federalist papers, etc.) of this nation. Instead, they are disparaged as "kooky".

Have you all drunk the Zouk koolaid? Is it really OK to invade sovereign nations? If you are against this war then you should demand your candidate to be vehemently outspoken against our invasion of Iraq. Such a candidate should also pledge to exhaust all legal means to hold this administration accountable for their military actions. Heck, they did more to investigate Bill Clinton's personal affairs. I want to see podium thumping outrage in my candidate on this topic, not carefully scripted PC babble.

Regarding electability: I think if Hillary took a very hard anti-war stance (borderline radical) and tied it back to the principles that founded this country she may win nationally. The country is sick of this war. And we are also deeply patriotic. Being against pre-emptive attack is patriotic (it is not anti troops). The case can be made by a skillful politician.

She also needs to be aggressive in going after Bush/Cheney and their preemptive strike policy. But how would that sit given Bill and 41's buddy buddy relationship? Her pro-war vote could be used against her ala Kerry? If you are really anti-war you'll need to find another candidate. Hillary's not electable on that issue and IMHO I think that will be a BIGGIE in '08.

I heard a wise arguement today. How do you force democracy at the barrel of a gun? How are iraqi's going to love democracy when we say " VOte or you are an insurgant and we will kill you."

How does that work in a part of the world that has never had it? It is impossible. We cannot force democracy on people that don't want it. Much like you gop'ers cannot force conservatisim on a free people in america. That is called freedom zouk. Going around the world forcing democracy accomplishes nothing as at home with my religon (chrsitianity). as you knwo I think the religous right are a bunch of fakes. But me saying "Accept Jesus, NOW." Does nothing. Who does that help? JEsus? God? The person? No. It helps the person trying to convert. Whatever that conversation may be.

It is not for us to change the world to one political system. We are americans. We should start making america a better place

I think real democratic socailism is the answer. You want freedom? Who want democracy? We could have utopia here, if the gop would stop ruining it. Then all world countries would see us, see how great it is to be an american and want the same for their people. Now the opposite is happening. Countries are looking at us and saying, "I don't want that to happen to my county."

So much has changed in so little time. Who to blame? I blame the GOP and the sell-outs in the democratic party. I blame the right wing propogandists for destroying the political conversation over a BJ?

Democratic socialism would save us. If we had a real party it would dominate the landscape. to bad we would all probably get arrested in this "free society" like they did in the 50';s and 60's. Only republcians now live in free america. But hey are free to be slaves. They don't see they are clones/borg. They don't see their own doublespeak and newspeak. That's why we need more democratic socialists. To show them they are fascists. To give the people another option. More options is better anywhere you go. If there was only pepsi and coke, why would they improve. The gop/dems are differant sides to the same coin. I want another coin as an option to keep these people on their tops. That is what america was supposed to be. When did we lose it? I say the gop mccartyism red scare of the fifities.

CC,
"What's changed? It's hard to pinpoint any one factor as responsible for the increased perception that Clinton is the strongest Democratic general election nominee."

Since I am conservative leaning, this is just a guess since I can't put myself in the shoes of someone that "would vote in a Democratic primary". That said, most people are not focused on the election or watching the debates. I don't have the TV numbers on hand but the normal people (non-political junkies) I know have not been watching. What they do hear are the big news / CNN headline soundbite issues. The only big issue over the last several months was the HRC / BO foreign policy brush-up. What they heard was that Obama was willing to talk to anybody anytime including our enemies - much the Carter approach. HRC's approach was much more "reasoned". Both those statements can and have been debated but I believe that is the perception conveyed. Could it be that centrist Dems, who believe in a "strong" foreign policy, get the perception that HRC is "stronger" on this? While I realize that there are nuances to the positions taken by BO and HRC (and the "issue" itself), this is how it came across to me from the MSM. It's the soundbites that drive opinions and that was the only one I can think of over the last couple of months.

FromMaine - I don't suppose you beleive that the citizens of Iran, and N Korea are receiving liberty and justice from their governments? so according to your logic, we should help them. I agree.

the geographic nature of conflict is again very archaic. Only the good guys respect borders, the enemy freely runs between Syria, Saudi, Pakistan, Afgnaistan, Iran, Iraq as they see fit. we don't chase them. the actual danger is not a long range missile, especially once the missile shield (arriving over the objections of the Dems) is in place. the true danger is from a smuggled nuke or other nasty device, handed off to a small terror unit from one of these nasty states. plausible deniability.

Overall, I find your view rather misinformed and hostile. to compare me to the third reich smacks of desperation and weakness. the US liberates people and hands a free country back with all resources at their disposal. we don't murder people, we don't coerce, etc. We have successfully done this in Europe, Asia, america and now it is the middle east's turn.

It is not that we "think" they are a threat. they actually take actions to point this out rather clearly if you are paying attention. when someone tells you that they wish to kill you, you might want to listen.

Our warships are in international waters. Our troops are conducting UN sanctioned operations. You are using misleading rhetoric to justify your position.

We didn't "think" Saddam was a threat - he invaded Kuwait. After defeating him, they sued for peace and the treaty had certain expectations in order to obligate us to peace. those were broken, not by us.

If you want to compare me to the third reich, I feel obligated to compare you to Neville chamberlins England. We need a churchill, not a ghandi. We are not dealing with the english as oppressors, we are dealing with a (some) murderous fascist state(s). We simply can't live in peace with them, no matter how strong that dream may be. We must play the hand we are dealt and finish cleaning up the world for everyone's benefit. that is what made and makes us great. the american army coming to town only strikes fear in the hearts of bad guys. to the rest it is symbolizes a new hope but perhaps not a guarantee.

Yeah, Democrats are super at picking winners. John Kerry, anyone?

Jim: Please refer to whom you direct your comment. I use the term "Hillary Haters" and the "Fear Factor" all the time, and these terms have been explained. Yours Hasn't. No way would I say anyone that did not support Hillary was stupid, to say so would indeed be stupid.

Gosh, so much to answer, so little time.
For the guy who doesn't trust any politicians, okay. I don't really know how that helps.

I stick with the facts: At the end of Bill Clinton's two terms, the right direction / wrong direction numbers in the nation were at 70% RIGHT DIRECTION.
They are the polar opposite today.

I use to give the GOP Congress a lot of the credit. Now I've seen them with Bush for the same amount of time as they were with Clinton.
Result: We're in the middle of a national nightmare.

I give the Clintons credit for Smart Government. I can compare Hillary Clinton's campaign and website with any other candidate, and I credit her for knowing and wanting Smart Government.

You're hiring an employee. Perfection doesn't always walk through the door when you're hiring. Find a candidate and advocate.
---------
So, here's a Clinton Hater's post from above to me:
CH: "little list of "scandals[insert ?] not so little: Hsu just this week. there is going to be a new one every week, just like last time."

FACT: This is another "scandal"? Jack Abramoff gave campaign donations to candidate George W. Bush. After Abramoff went to prison, Bush donated them to charity. Somehow, that WASN'T a scandal.
May I know what HRC has done here that GWB didn't do?
Or are you a Loyal Bushie Clinton Hater? imo, they're the most gulliable people on the face of the Earth.
So, gullible AND stupid...
I'll bet you support The Worst President Ever!

CH: "so what do you teach up there? Math, econ? Feminist studies? Just like a clinton, you didn't answer the question but made fun of it instead. Just like a clinton, you are hiding your true self."

Me: I made "fun" of you? No, I called you an idiot. I teach sports marketing. I didn't know you were interested.

Just in case, I'm happily married to a combat vet.
You "support the troops"?
I talk to troops every day of my life. Not ONE of them wants to go back to Iraq.
How do you plan on supporting our troops? Send them back to Iraq?

CH: "nada, zip, zero charge" - are you that dishonest or delusional?
Me: Delusional?
I define "delusional" as this crap -- "Every person that comes in contact with the clintons is eventually dead, in jail or in witness protection or out of the country."

By the way -
FACT: The Jack Abramoff scandal is the biggest in history -- money-wise and people-wise.
Not only is he in prison for stuff that resulted in tax-payers getting ripped off for millions of dollars, but he's put both Bush adminstration officials and US Representatives in prison with him for join in.
And some are still singing. So, I PROMISE you there will be more to come for 2008.

THAT'S the biggest scandal in history -- a Republican scandal -- and that's a FACT.

Next you'll tell me that Clinton was a perjurer. OH, THAT...
FACTS: Ken Starr brought charges of perjury and obstruction of justice against Clinton, and the federal Grand Jury laughed him out of court.
Besides, I guess the GOP changed their minds, and perjury and obstruction of justice are no longer offenses, nevermind impeachable offenses.

Again, I repeat:
Clinton Haters are the stupidest people in the world.
And I rest my case with numbnuts here.

Your right about that Frommaine. My boy zouk is gop fascist. I gotta get that in at least once a day, so people know what we are working with. In respect to openess I am the oppostie of the gop fascists. Personally I am a democratic socialist.

The beuty of america is we are in the same blog profess compleatly opposite views. My issue with the gop is, they would silence the debate. They would use divide and conquer tatcis to destroy real converstaion and political growth. They would make these words off limits. Like trudi they would make us all reamin quiet and civil. So the liberals are for freedom and the gop fascists are for slavery, IMO.

the funny thing is, the only power they have, here, is the power we give them. That is why the internet is the great equalizer. That is why the gop is trying to silecne the internet with 9/11/the patriot act. To stop the internet. In the world they can shock us with tasers, they can arrest us for speaking non-gop talking points. the internet is the great equalizer. the only power they have is the power WE give them.

the doesn't mean they don't whine cry and complaint that everybody doesn't blog the way htey like. Believe me, they still try. But you have no power over me.

Mark in Auston wrote
"My take is that, if this is true, they also thought John Kerry was their most electable candidate, in 2004, so their collective sniffer and their crystal ball are both imprecise."

I don't think that entirely fair. You simply can't compare an election against a sitting President (even one as bad a Bush was at the time) to an open seat year. Better to compare '08 against 2000. If the same held true then as does now, Bush only won by some sneakiness in Florida and a Supreme Court decision. Now with Republican negatives so high, I don't think HRC can lose. Or Obama or maybe even Edwards. It's just a bad year for Republicans

Sorry to step on your toes drindl. I wasn't that far yet. At lest we know you are on point and keeping the piars and propogandsits honest:). I trust your opinion a little more now. Great minds think alike :)

Sept. 11 was a TRAGEDY. If Iraq was behind the attack then we should have gone after them. I believe the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.(?) Why didn't we go after them? "

Hey, that's bush's oil ties. It has also been reported, after all the iran war cheerleading, that saudi arabia has more bombers in iraq than Iran. Wrap your brain aroudn that one.

But bush allows bin laden's family to fly out of the country, when all other traffic is grounded and other SA dignataries. And you people are going to defend bush with your dying breath saying the war is not about oil.

i got a brdige to sell you

"I didn't make a single disparaging comment about another candidate, or about a supporter of another candidate. Neither did the other Clinton supporters here, as far as I've read."

What? You just ranted about Republicans, which I would presume would include supporters and candidates. This is what is wrong with the Democratic party, you have independents like myself flocking to your party in droves, yet we become disenchanted by the arrogance of people like yourself.

I am not going to question the intelligence of someone who does not agree with me. I won't make disparaging comments about who they are, or the candidate they support.

I don't like Hillary Clinton, not because of her as much as what she represents. More of the same. I don't like Bush. I never want another Bush or Clinton in the White House. I don't believe this makes me a stupid person as you have suggested about "Hillary Haters".

I probably agree with her on a lot of policy issues, but I believe we need to move beyond policy and into principle in the next election. This is part of the reason I am suspending my more conservative beliefs in support of the next Presidential candidate.

But I have serious concerns about her qualifications and motivating factors. I am not convinced she would work for us, or could set aside special interests for what is in the best interests of this Nation's citizens.

But go on, tell me and others like me that we are stupid because we don't like Hillary.

"That has to be one of the most pathetic justifications I've ever seen."

you've never heared that agrument zouk, you fascist you. WOW. you need to get out more. Common sense, buddy. come on. get out of that cave. I already cut your chain. ALL you have to do is walk out. why are you resisting reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

"I am currently "a Democratic voter" I'm not a Democrat

the logic course seems appropriate.

Feminist studies - I knew it.
"

Lie spin and discredit. The gop will tell you all about yourself jan. Authoriarians. Fascsts.

OH. Zouk is a lying propogating fascists for those of you new here. Don't encourage him. his game is the gop game of divide and conquer. Ruining the converstaion is his daily goal. I would not play you out like that Jan. I just want clinton supports to see how their wrong. Vote gop, for pete's sake. Give the democrats a real non-sell-out candidate. Hillary is the gop running agaisnt itself. You want hillary, vote for Rudy or mitt. Give the rest of the country the candidate we want and stop sabotaging us gop and sell-out moderates.

zouk

We only declared war on Germany in WWII after they declared war on us folowing their interpretation of their treaty with Japan.

I usually like the Fix, but this is the most worthless post I've seen all year. The premise is basically "Hillary is the best Democrat to win the General election because the majority of the democrats polled believe she is the most electable in the general.
This is like saying 54% of NY Yankees fans believe the yankees will shut out the Boston Redsocks in the 2004 World Series and therefore it must be so. Absurd? Yes, just like this blog post. A primary electorate is completely biased - primary voters opinions have absolutely no bearing on the votes and opinions of citizens who are not card-carrying democrats. Most of the 2004 primary voters picked John Kerry based on the prediction that he was the candidate most likely to beat Bush. Look how well this worked out for the Democarts. You can't make any type of legitimate prediction about the vote and opinions of the general electorate based on the favor of a small sample group that are self-identified Democrats. Numbers simple mean nothing in an analysis like this...
The fact that the Fix posted this is highly disappointing; it shows a move from real analysis to meaningless pudit dribble. Seriously Chris, what happened? I hope the clinton campaign is paying you or something.

It's called Habeas Corpus, zouk, you probably wouldn't know that, since you've obviously never read the Constitution --and right now, none of us have it anymore. We can be detained, held indefinitly and tortured to death, simply disappeared, at the whimsy of our dictator... umm, president.

And that's what morons like you call 'freedom.'

Zouk - Wow! Where to begin...

This country was founded on principles of liberty and justice for all ("all" includes everyone, everywhere, not just those living on our continent).

Following your logic we should strike Russia, North Korea and China as they all possess "mushroom cloud" producing long range missiles that can reach our lands. Syria, Iran on the other hand do not posses missiles that can reach our shores. Of course we have warships provocatively poised on their shores. Would they be justified in attacking our ships? (again following your logic about defensive aggression). I see no Iranian warships parked in the Atlantic within range of NYC. So please help me understand how this American policy works. We can attack other nations if we 'think' they are a threat. But they are not justified in preemptively lobbing attacks at us if we mass our troops on their border in a threatening pose.

I sincerely am not name calling, but this policy of yours is reminiscent of the Third Reich. That didn't work out too well for Germany if you recall. You may want to take a deep breath, pause, reflect and refine your policy a tad.

What kind of judgement would she use to make decisions regarding the terrorists' war on us?

what kind of judgment did she have in trusting bill to keep his fly zipped after so many bimbo eruptions. was she the last to know in america? how will she keep an eye on N Korea who might even be a bigger liar then bill. the clintons believed them last time and look what happened. now who would have thought that N Korea would lie to us - not Hillary I guess.

judgment - how about kissy face with terror wives. compare to Rudy's judgment - throwing smelly camel dung arafat out of NY and send his check back. that sounds like the kind of judgment I am looking for.

judgment - she says she sent chelsea to sidwell because the press would hound her in public school. this isn't even believable on its face.

what kind of judgment does it take to sell a pardon through your brother?

what kind of judgment does it take to trump up a travel office scandel to replace them with your cronies, despite the bad politics?

This is the judgment you admire?

That's right, the 9/11 terrorists were from good old Saudi Arabia. And, Saudi Arabia is also the country which is sending the MOST foreign fighters into Iraq to fight Americans [WHICH THEY ADMIT] and they also fund the madrassas which teach Wahhaism, the fundamentalist Islamic cult who hates america.

So zouk, tell me why we're not attacking Saudi Arabia. Just try to put something into words that you actually thought of yourself.

Pledge taking is a Republican gimmick. You may want to re-think that one, Jan.

I also thought that Women's Studies was probably on the mark.

[Zouk changed it to Feminist Studies, but that's okay, point made.]

Washington - The Senate voted on Wednesday against considering a measure to give Guantanamo detainees and other foreigners the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts. The legislation needed 60 votes to be considered by lawmakers in the Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats; it received only 56, with 43 voting against the effort to roll back a key element of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

rights for killers - the Dem way. doing a great job Harry - you tried and failed - again.

In a move that has stunned New York, the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.

If Rudy were still Mayor, he would push him in the hole and drop a steel beam on him.

go rudy.

Jan: The abortion issue, for or against, is but another Red Herring. Each of us, now living, LOGIC, would be against at any time. LOGIC, women have control over their own bodies. As a male, I support the position of Hillary, Safe, Legal, and Rare. What this issue boils down to is not having any difference either way, when looked at by LOGIC, as a standard.

Well, Jan, ...I just went onto her website, and I don't understand how you can agree with her on her list of promises that include ending the war in Iraq, combatting terrorism and strengthening the military when she has been on every side of the Iraq war from it's inception, she failed to read the classified information that was provided to her regarding vital national security issues, her 'experience' with the military under her husband's administration is lacking even though she portrays herself as "tough enough" to be CIC and continues to fight off her peacenik image.

In assessing Hillary Clinton's readiness to be commander-in-chief, voters can move on from the toughness question to the far more difficult one about judgment. What kind of judgement would she use to make decisions regarding the terrorists' war on us?

What judgments does she make today about the great national security decisions that faced her husband?

Specifically, what does she think about his accepting of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review after which the nuclear arms reduction process died, the universally accepted goal of an ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons was abandoned, and the next round of proliferation began, his aggressive sponsorship of NATO expansion into the former Soviet sphere producing tension that we still deal with today vis a vis Russia, and the weaponizing of space Clinton kept alive with missile defense.

Hillary Clinton's Senate record is ambiguous. She owes voters a more forthright accounting. What did she think of her husband's fateful decisions then? What does she think of them now? Will she decide based on the latest poll?

I am currently "a Democratic voter" I'm not a Democrat

the logic course seems appropriate.

Feminist studies - I knew it.

FromMaine - my point was that Germany never attacked us but Roosevelt was itchin' to go to war, despite the sentiments of your fellow travellers.

the Japanese attacked us but we still declared war on Germany. Italy too. this is not an isolated case in our history. In fact declaring war is extremely rare.

your antiquated idea of waiting to be attacked just doesn't comport with modern weaponry. does a mushroom cloud need to appear over a US city to properly motivate you?

the Sept 11 attack was just the latest round of Democracy vs fascism we have been fighting all the last century. The enablers of terror and hatred still inhabit the middle East. We are not going to be safe until the swamp is drained.

We were already in Iraq and for geographic reasons and logistical and political reasons it made sense to do them first. but syria, Iran and N Korea are on the list. Libya may have shaped up in time to avoid our wrath. We did not want this war but we will have to finish it properly.

re: "Her support from moderates needed to win in the general election will be low. Democratic voters should really think about that...especially readers like Jan, who says she doesn't give a flying f@*# about what Republicans think..."

First, please keep in mind that although I am currently "a Democratic voter" I'm not a Democrat -- I'm an Independent.

My advice to Democrats (and I'm dead serious) is that you *ALL* stop giving a flying f@*# about what Republicans think too.

Democrats sit around and tear each other's candidates up one side and down the other for months and months and months -- and then blame the Republicans (or "moderates") that you lost yet another election.

Do you expect the rest of the nation to turn around and vote for one of your candidates, when you seem not to be able to stand them yourselves in all the months leading up to the election?

I will be voting for ANY Democrat who wins the primary.
The joke is, not all Democrats are willing to make that same pledge!!

Fine by me. It's your party.

See there goes Zouk now!

Zouk - You're asking me to defend going to war with Bosnia, Grenada, Panama?!? Sorry, I don't drink that koolaid.

I'm no historian but I believe the U.S. only entered WWll AFTER being ATTACKED at Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, we kept our powder dry despite the Blitzkrieg into Poland, roll into Austria and other Nazi aggression.

Sept. 11 was a TRAGEDY. If Iraq was behind the attack then we should have gone after them. I believe the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.(?) Why didn't we go after them?

FromMaine:
I serve as the village idiot. most call me ignorant coward but I am still contemplating a name. I hope to find one on the daily Kos so I don't have to think too hard.

mostly I serve as comic relief to the more serious posters here. you can always count on me to cut and paste long, boring, unrelated articles which I think reflect badly on George Bush. I also post one line insults.

My greatest accomplishment is to patrol the outskirts of the blog, on the lookout for the evil Zouk, who dares to come in here and post truth, justice and the american way. as you know, this is anathema to us moonbats and can't be tolerated.

I spend most of my day monitoring this blog for Zouk postings and point them out when I see them. this service is free of charge. you can pay me back by talking to me occasionally. no one else will so I often get quite lonely. If the tone of the conversation gets too factual, I must depart but you can then find me over at Kos, huff or the Nation, where I spend the rest of my waking hours.

your friend,

Undecided

Zouk, I'd bet that Jan is a professor at one of your beloved private schools.

Dems always fall into this trap.

They want electibility and end up getting someone they dont want to vote for.

"I think the very definition of the "unborn" is "without a birthdate," right?"

That has to be one of the most pathetic justifications I've ever seen.

You actually teach at the college level?

Give a call over to your Philosophy Department and see if they have any room in Logic 101. Youn need to take that course.

Head vs. heart gave us Kerry in 2004 (head), do the math.

Hey Jan, I'm an equal opportunity pol hater. Hillary just happens to be one of them.

I've been around long enough to see the games and patterns, cycle after cycle. Are you naive enough to believe that money and special interest groups do NOT influence the behavior of our elected officials? Does this not bother you on a grand scale? Do you really think she and the boys are responsive to us - the tax paying voters?

Do you actually believe that Hillary gives a hill of beans about you and me and the "little guy"? Does Romney? Giuliani? Bush 1? Bush 2? Clinton? Edwards? Kerry? Gore? Like a nursery rhyme it's comforting to hear them prattle on and believe they are really looking at you and me when they make their promises. C'mon, we're all friends here. Just admit that all of these politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are bought and paid for actors and actresses.

Point me in the direction of the candidate who is NOT beholden to special interest groups or in lock step with party ideology. We need radical change in this country. The evidence that our Great Society/Military Machine is wrongheaded mounts every day. Education performance dropping, average income dropping, foreign entanglements, huge deficits, huge debt, credit crisis. You, among many many others, believe an insider can clean this house. I'm not buying it.

Frommaine, thanks for the responses.

"Remember, the reason is why U.S. Soldiers should be dying there?

Because I am so dense I didn't get it the first one hundred times. In fact, I haven't gotten anything for the last five years. Is Hillary for the war still?" - That's Zouk

If you're new here you may have already gathered that he and rufus detract from this thread. Zouk because he is a troll and rufus because he serves the purpose of trolls.

Zouk's also quite hypocritical as he considers U.S. soldiers just pawns who go to die in the global arena, yet refuses to give the slightest evidence that he's ever done anything in service to this country.

His retort of Ignorant Coward might be comical if it wasn't more descriptive of him, than of those he aims it at.

little list of "scandals

not so little: Hsu just this week. there is going to be a new one every week, just like last time.

so what do you teach up there? Math, econ? Feminist studies? Just like a clinton, you didn't answer the question but made fun of it instead. Just like a clinton, you are hiding your true self.

"nada, zip, zero charge" - are you that dishonest or delusional? Every person that comes in contact with the clintons is eventually dead, in jail or in witness protection or out of the country. they have the record for corruption in modern politics by all measures. All their Arkansas friends went to jail. Even Buddy is dead and Sox is in witness protection.

Clinton supporters have a keen skill of denial and fact aviodence. they must.

re: "the unborn" and Hillary Clinton...
I fully support women.

As far as I'm concerned, the US Constitution covers people with birthdates.
I think the very definition of the "unborn" is "without a birthdate," right?

I personally don't believe anyone is a person until God gives them breath (which is what the Bible says).
That would mean "a person" is "born" not "unborn."

But, regardless of my personal opinions, if the "unborn" have any protections under the US Constitution, it is as a part of its host(ess).
Both Clinton and I support the rights of the hostess.

FromMaine - there was that little action in Kuwait you might remember, where in we agreed to stop our advance after our ally was attacked. There were certain conditions which went unmet.

In fact almost no wars in US history fit your description - we were never attacked by Germany, either war, never attacked by spain, never attacked by Panama, Grenada, bosnia, ...the list is long.

you are going to have to come up with some reason based in fact and truth around here. why not just go with "I don't ever support war" if you want to be consistent.

Our founding fathers went to war without being attacked you might recall. I presume you would call Jefferson a founding fathe. Ever heard of the barbary pirates? the War of 1812? nope, we were never attacked.

I am sure you do remember those two tall buildings previously located in Manhattan though?

She looks great right now. However, that poll was among Democrats. Her support from moderates needed to win in the general election will be low. The Democratic voters should really think about that...especially readers like Jan, who says she doesn't give a flying f@*# about what Republicans think...

And as for this reply to me:
"I would like to think your same comment could be said of the "Clinton Lovers." "

Again, look over the proof right in front of you.

I'm a Clinton supporter, yet I didn't make a single disparaging comment about another candidate, or about a supporter of another candidate. Neither did the other Clinton supporters here, as far as I've read.

Look at what I got back from the Clinton Haters. And it's absolutely typical of them.

I have yet to have a Clinton Hater come back at me with, "I just went onto her website, and I don't understand how you can agree with her on such-and-such?"

No, it's always some arrogant personal bully attack.
Like this one: I couldn't possibly support Clinton and still teach economics or math!
L.M.F.A.O.

I pick out the Clinton Haters because they stand out on any blog, by constantly mouthing off a bunch of hate-filled baloney, never any substance.

They've been sent off into the world with their little list of "scandals" -- I think it's up to about 28 now -- and those "scandals" are truth to them... because Dan Burton went out in his backyard in 1998 and blasted a dozen watermelons with a machine gun or something. Three investigations, literally billions of dollars, nada, zip, zero charge... and somehow Vince Foster is still on their list as a "scandal."

Hey, if the rest of you think Clinton Haters sound intelligent, so be it.
I don't.

Interesting day. I am glad to see Cassandra back again,and a couple others, Jan making sense as well. JimD and Mark, I thought Clark was the best bet in 04. JimD, Mark , drindl, and bsimon: I forget, who do you support as of now? I will write it down for futher reference. I'm pretty sure Clark will be chosen for Defense. Kerry gave it away as Gore did in 2K. I go to HillaryHub daily to get the latest.

Clarification: we should only go to war as a response to an attack OR pending attack. Even if Iraq had WMD's, their troops were not positioned to attack the U.S. Therefore, Iraq did not represent a pending attack. The NeoCons used the catch phrase "clear and present danger" as justification for this military action. That is an unacceptable and too vague a reason for me as an American to justify committing our troops and money.

"How is trying to come together and save it. How is stopping us from coming together. Think on these things. my two cents. Trying to help you see the other side jan.
"

Who is bringin gus together. WHo is stopping us from coming togeher. that is.

The gop are dividing the nation. Have been for many years. Divide and conquer for profit. Dittoheads like zouk will always have the democrat sell-out saboturs to point to, but that is the point. Watch them link things 40 years apart. Why? divide and conquer for profit.

Remember, the reason is why U.S. Soldiers should be dying there?

Because I am so dense I didn't get it the first one hundred times. In fact, I haven't gotten anything for the last five years. Is Hillary for the war still?

"One more point jan. watch for saboturs. To me hillary is the definition of a democratic sabotur but there are others, both parties"

John kerry, howard dean, nancy pelosi, harry reid, larry craig, We could do this all day.

but look for opurtune missteps like the dean scream and the kerry wording mishap at jsut the righ ttime for the gop/dem

May sound paranoid. But look at teh facts. dig. find out what is going on. and then spread the truth. Only americans can destroy this great country. And only WE togther can save it. How is trying to come together and save it. How is stopping us from coming together. Think on these things. my two cents. Trying to help you see the other side jan.

PEace. I love you for what you do for a living :)

I won't defend this, or any other, undeclared war where the U.S. strikes preemptively (which means we attack before being attacked or attack as the other side is launching an attack). I consider this military action to be completely UN-American. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. The military actions of this administration, and to a lesser extent the complicity of Congress, undermine our rule of law. It is obscene, indefensible.

The troops are following orders from the Commander in Chief. I pray for their safe return.

Recently, the non-partisan publication "Congressional Quarterly" reported that the Pentagon is receiving earmarked appropriations it has not asked for.

Most of these earmarks are destined for pet projects within certain congressional districts, undoubtedly slated to meet political ends.
In fact, 67 of the House Democrats who voted in favor to cut defense spending by over 20% are the very ones who have added $485 million worth of earmarked defense appropriations for various companies located within their home districts.

Blatant contradiction? Many of these Democrats have already defined the defense budget as "bloated" and "overextended", but apparently the same characterization does not apply for such projects.

These earmarks put unneeded pressure on the Pentagon's desired budget. In order to keep the overall total amount appropriated from rising, Congress cuts funding for programs that the Pentagon actually wants!

I don't know about you, but I think the military is more qualified to make the call on what programs stay and what goes.

One more point jan. watch for saboturs. To me hillary is the definition of a democratic sabotur but there are others, both parties. For instance, if moveon sold out to the gop, then the petreus add would be a gop move, right. I don't think this happened, i agree with them ,and am a former soldier.

But watch false flags. People claiming to be something just to sabotage the movement. Not saying this is happening here either. Just something to think about.

It is not smart to make such generalizations while knowing so little about the posters. We have what are called trolls. they come in here and sabotage. this is the gop game. divide and conquer. Lie spin and discredit. you must know them to comabt them jane.

Hillary knows the right, I would argue to much. But is she fighting them or standing side by side with them? think on that.

The Defense Appropriations Bill in the Senate has been unveiled and frankly, it is staggering. Senate appropriators disclosed approximately 936 earmarks totaling $5.1 billion.

fiscally irresponsible and ethically challenged Dems

What I find most interesting is not the disclosed earmarks, but rather those that are undisclosed. Typically the total earmarks in an appropriations bill can be more than double with the inclusion of undisclosed earmarks. The House version of the Defense appropriations bill contained $3 billion in earmarks, but adding in undisclosed projects in the senate raised the total to the $6.5 billion neighborhood.

Good point Frommaine. The Middle East it shall be.

Okay, now give me the reason(s) U.S. soliders should be dying there. Is it, WMD, repsonse to Radical Islam, Israel, ruthless dictators, oil (intentionally last) or something else?

Remember, the reason is why U.S. Soldiers should be dying there?

"Whether the Republicans rally or not, any Democrat is going to beat any Republican"

but to me clinton IS a republican. That is why Fox "News" is raising money for her. That is why Bill clinton is touring the world with Bush 41. So if WE run clinton, we are running gop vs gop. That is the only way the gop can win.

more gop hypocricy. Attack murtha, attack kerry, attack pace, attack batiste. But when moveon labels the other side a liar, watch out. HAHAHAHAHAHHA. Only works with the dittoheads. the number of people that want us out of iraq RAISED after the petreus speech.

"You'd have thought MoveOn sold a copy of "how to make a nuclear bomb in two si