As someone else said - Blarg and Bsimon - what you said.
And I would like to add that I have canvassed for Obama. We have found that people who say they suport Hillary tend to do so because they would like to see Bill back in the white house. There are MANY MANY Obama supporters in California and in the earlier caucus states. Also, these polls do not reflect what we are hearing. Who are they polling? Not one of my friends have been polled. We have more "undecideds" than we show Clinton supporters. I wonder why that is?

I believe that Iowa and New Hampshire will be a wonderful surprise. And to those of you who say a black man can NEVER be President of the United States I say stay tuned...

DRAFT G O R E / put OBAMA on the ticket :
U N B E A T A B L E !

Are you people for real with talk of Hillary's "experience"? What experience?
She failed the Washington D.C. bar exam and then high tailed it to Arkansas and married Bill. He put her in charge of eductation reform for that state - and she failed. She became a partner in Rose Law Firm thanks to Bill throwing business to that firm - or maybe it was because she was so great at hiding records... She failed at healthcare reform (her only claim to doing anything while First Lady) and she bought the NY Senate seat just like every other politician buys what they want. She's done nothing for NY except use it as a platform to launch her presidential bid. And her "landslide re-election" was a joke. She spend oodles of money on a campaign without any real opponent and her 67% win is another Clinton interpretation of the never ending polls by which she lives her life.
As senator of NY she cast one deciding vote of any substance - Iraq - and it was the wrong one. This, after all her "experience and own personal research of the matter"... Now she backs away from it and she was "dubed" -- BY GWB? I'd be embarrassed just to utter those words.
Just the Clinton's manipulation of the media is frightening. Run an unflattering ad against Hillary and GQ risked losing Bill. Yeah, now ther's someone I want protecting my constitutional rights after 8 years of GWB stepping on them.
And I believe these polls about as much as I believe the media isn't bias. Considering the Senate's approval rating is the lowest its been in history, any senator running for president should be automatically rejected. If you can't handle being a senator you aren't qualified to be a president!
No more Bushs - no more Clintons.

DUSTIN,
Hillary is not reality... yet anyway. I prefer thoughtful analysis to propaganda and to all caps "shouting". I appreciate that you have made up your mind, but be prepared for the potential outcome that your candidate will not make the nomination.

Democrats need to step back and and carefully analyze each candidate before throwing support behind one. Beware of "establishment" candidates. Look what happened to Kerry. If democrats were bolder and nominated Howard Dean instead of wishy-washy, poll-watching, triangulating Kerry we might now have a democratic president and an Iraq war a thing of the past.

Let's be bold, thoughtful and innovative in picking a candidate and pay less attention to half-baked polls and media hype around it.

As much as I enjoy reading WaPo, the ABC News/WashingtonPost poll is a major outlier in the polls conducted over the last several weeks and therefore, I give little stock to it. It's got Hillary's numbers at roughly 10% points higher than her numbers in these other polls. Anybody, who is looking at that critically has to wonder.

The ABC/Post poll is worthless. It surveyed "adults" not even registered voters. The results are therefore not surprising as polls of adults (as opposed to "registered voters" or even better "likely voters") usually simply parrot back what they have been seeing on tv or hearing on the radio. The media for the past two or three weeks has been talking about how inevitable Senator Clinton is (with her appearing on all the Sunday talk shows to boot just before the poll was conducted).

IF, WE AMERICANS REALLY LOVE OUR COUNTRY ; AND WANT IT TO BE THE ONE AND ONLY SUPER POWER,LOOKED UP TO AND RESPECTED AROUND THE WORLD FOR YEARS TO COME; SENATOR CLINTON - FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. IT'S JUST REALITY.

Rickerando,
I'm glad that Hillary has enthusiastic supporters. However, your evaluation does not seem very objective. Is this a plant from the campaign?? Putting down all of the other candidates - many of whom are more qualified than Hillary - seems to be a common denominator of Hillary fans.

Here is my report card:
- smart 90%
- cool 30%
- factual answers 70%
- sense of humor 40%
- prepared 90%
- unflappable 60%
- has grace 30%
- appears confident 90%
- truthful 50%
- original 20%

Hillary is winning because she is:
-smart
-cool
-good at giving error-free, factual answers
-has a sense of humor (re: stupid questions)
-prepared (seemingly for any eventuality)
-unflappable
-has grace
-appears confident
-more and more the ONE person that has what it takes to unravel the Bush 8-year mess. Who else is REALLY capable? C'mon: Obama? Kucinich? Paul? Edwards? Giuliani? Nader? Fred? Surely you jest.
And which is more she can go to ANY country in the world, be welcomed, be respected, be known and represent America better than anyone currently running.
This is Hillary's time.
She'll do America proud.

Good point, roo.
Add that in most states unaffiliated voters won't be able to vote in the primary election. Thus, what matters is not "lean dems" but "registered dems", which is not necessarily the same.

bsimon--"of the ~1300 respondents, 38% 'lean' dem, which are theh ones cited as supporting Sen Clinton. Given that this is a nationwide poll, its difficult to imagine that many of the respondents have paid much attention to the process at all. Which might be an interesting question to ask in the next poll."

I would like to see the correlation between "how many debates watched/news stories read/etc." and "who do you support."

Will, Obama seems the most attractive Dem candidate to me too, although Richagdson and Biden are not bad either. The trouble with Clinton is too much baggage. I also agree with earlier posts that being first lady does not amount to much experience in terms of the presidency.

Too much is being made of a sigle poll (ABC). Let's see if future polls will support this. For example, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll has not changed significantly the last few days.

Actually, I should point out that the MSM is likely to focus obsessively on:

Who they want to have a beer with

-and-

What mannerisms of the candidate they can distort (laugh, yell, cry, doesn't matter)

It's not like the MSM wants us to have a good President, they want us to choose who they tell us to choose.

Right?

Well, while I do actually know some supporters of Sen. Clinton, most people I know would far rather support Sen. Obama or President Gore.

I don't think the reality on the ground matches what you people in the beltway are trying to shove down our throats.

In my opinion, third and fourth parties in the US will be only viable after a major electoral reform including the following:
1. Elimination of the electoral college.
2. Awarding at least part of the congressional seats based on proportional representation to party lists.
...and perhaps additional constitutional reforms. Any suggestions?

Like I've said mikeb. I would be for four parties. This way the left is represted. The problem then becomes the moderates. They would sell-out to teh right every single time. they have no morales. Chris matthews is a perfect example of a moderates mentality, to me. The truth doesn't matter. Right and wrong doesn't matter.

They are like lawyers arguing for a side. They don't believe what they say. don't worry mike. We got them. We may have to wait four more years. But it will happen. fret not. The gop si done. they are done. We both know this. So either we need to control the d party, of at least half of it, or form a real third party. Either way. We will get them. The internet changes the game. We got them by the balls. Don't fret mike. We have already won. They just don't know it yet. Now we jsut have to wait a year.

Loudoun, I react when someone like you posts something like "Once again, self-proclaimed Democrat MikeB takes a half-hour (at least) out of his day to craft a post lambasting Democrats". Actually, I am a liberal, not a Democrat. The Democratic Party of late has become another cover for corporations, the wealthy, and special interest groups. I have been a Democratic Party worker in the past. I knocked on doors, answered telephones, donated money, put up signs, etc. I am NOT doing this during this cycle. If Ms. Clinton is the nominee, I will get very active and do everything in my power to defeat her and every candidate from the party that would foist this disaster off on us.

Mark, Boko, Judge, Drindl, I just sent each of you an email.

To everyone else, I like Hillary, Obama, Dodd, and Biden. If foreign policy were the most important issue on the table today, Biden would be the most qualified of all Rs and the Dems running. If domestic issues were the most important, Chris Dodd probably has the best relevant experience.

People, however, do not vote on global issues. They vote locally AND sometimes for very personal reasons. Dodd and Biden have not been able to get traction, and it's 10 months into the campaign. So the primary voters find themselves choosing between the three leading candidates.

Hillary's surge is the pragmatist in people coming out. They know how ugly the general election will be, and I'm guessing the majority now believes that of the three leading Dems, Hillary is the one who can put up the best fight.

Colin: Everyone knows you're NOT trying to pick a fight, while it's equally apparent that MikeB IS trying to do so. His posts are as offensive as zouk's. They have a very nasty edge to them.

We need more people like colin on this blog. goes about his buisness. Moderates nicely. Posts his on point post. You are the man colin. But you gotta feel mike's frustration.

Keep posting colin. Do your thing. I learn a lot from you. Democrats like you give me hope for the d party. I'm still and independant. But I'm starting to understand the d's a little better thanks to voices like yours.

A far contrast to the gop's on this site who think this is all a game. Rather than coming togther on common issues its, lie spin and idscreit. do your thing colin. Sorry for what I do here. I'm just trying to open it up so people are free to post without worrying about the gop peanut gallery. No one is as left as me. This free's other to say what they mean. Keep postin gcolin. You are making a differance, if with only me. :)

Peace.

MikeB -- Again, I'm fine agreeing to disagree on immigration. Unlike you, I don't think that kind of disagreement reflects poorly on your character. Healthy debate is a good thing and there are, admittedly, quite a few sides to the immigration debate. I do, however, take exception to (1) your tendency to assasinate the character of ANYONE who disagrees with you on this issue; and (2)at the same time, your rather inconcievable tendency to give Reagan a pass when he was instrumental in passing some of the legislation you hate. The immigration bill that you say he "merely signed" is a good example. Last time I checked, a law doesn't become a law absent the President signing it.

Anyway, i'm actually NOT trying to pick a fight and I dont' have any problem with you criticising Democrats and Republicans alike. I just wish you weren't so quick to assign the worst motivations to everyone with whom you disagree.

Sen. Clinton will get rolled in the general, plain and simple. If GW can win two elections, she can't win one. It makes me sick to think of two families running our country for decades on end. And look at these comments...she can rip the repubs apart, they fear her, "i can't wait to see them squirm". Yeah, that sounds GREAT for our country. Fatter and dumber, fatter and dumber.

"3. Rush hates our troops based on two words taken out of context, yet Reid loves them despite all the slander he has uttered over the years."

Reid has nothing to do with the rush incident. But I agree with the first line. But it's not two words. It's a career spanning 20 years. Read up on your avatar rush. Find out what you are talking about before opening you fascist pie-hole.

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

"Sportscasting career
In 2000, ABC considered adding Limbaugh to their Monday Night Football broadcast team before deciding on comedian Dennis Miller instead.[35]

On July 14, 2003, ESPN announced that Limbaugh would be joining ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown show as a weekly analyst when it premiered on September 7. Limbaugh would provide the "voice of the fan" and was supposed to spark debate on the show.[36] On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2[37] start to the season:

" Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.[38] "

On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN with the statement:

" My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated. I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret. I love Sunday NFL Countdown and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it. Therefore, I have decided to resign. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the show and wish all the best to those who make it happen.[39]
"

He also called barack "Barack the magic negro"

"Limbaugh is sharply critical of feminism, believing that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."[66] He also popularized the term "feminazi", referring to radical feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur."[67] Rush credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term.[68]"

"On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal issue, Limbaugh said, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of emotional release?"[76][77][78]"

Skull and bones?

"Questions about accuracy
Some groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy. The July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, a publication of the progressive group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), alleges fifty different inaccuracies and distortions in Limbaugh's commentary.[79][80] Others have since joined FAIR in questioning Limbaugh's facts. Al Franken, a self-described "liberal infotainer",[81] wrote a satirical book (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations) in which he questioned Limbaugh's accuracy.[82] Media Matters for America, a self-described "web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", has also been critical.[83]

Limbaugh has also been criticized for inaccuracies by the Environmental Defense Fund. A defense fund report authored by Princeton University endowed geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer and Princeton University professor of biology David Wilcove lists 14 significant scientific facts which, the authors allege, Limbaugh misrepresented in his book The Way Things Ought to Be.[84] The authors conclude that "Rush Limbaugh ... allows his political bias to distort the truth about a whole range of important scientific issues."

For his part, Limbaugh claims to pay an independent organization to screen every opinion for accuracy, which he reports to the audience
"

and so on and so forth. The right has spent the last few years trying to remove their content for the internet using copyright laws. Cowards. Why don't they want people to read what they say. This is why they hate mm so much. Because they report what they say. I got a solution. Get off the air.

Any independant thinkers want to see what o'reilly rush and hannity do for a living, and the other fascist propogandsits. Go to media matters. Contrary to what the right wing smear merchants say. Mediamatters puts what these people say out there for all to see.

www.mediamatters.org

"4. O"reilly sucks even though everyone watches him and Olbermann is great, it just doesn't show up in the ratings somehow.
"

Won't matter much longer, will it. Pretty soon there will be no o'reilly on the air. I bet olberman would step off teh air if that happened. And show you traitors what a real patriot does. As opposed to the gop platform of sellin gout the country so they can make millions.

14. After not accomplishing anything in 7 years in the Senate, you deserve a promotion."

As opposed to what? What did the gop do once thye finally got control of both the house and senate? Did they do their jobs, in terms of accountabliity. Doublethink, zouk. Me and kim are running away together. Just thought you should know.

""8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age.""

Or better yet, warren jeffs, tim mcveigh or The waco wackos.

"8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age."

As opposed to the teahings of ann coulter rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly? Ok. YEah right. WACKOOOS

"5. Media matters and Moveon are fair and balanced and have no agenda like fox does.
"

1. show me one lie they reported.

2. what is fox o'reilly's and rush's response to them? shut them down. smear them. hahahahha. YOUR A FUNNY FASCIST ZOUK. dO YOU REALIZE THE DOUBLE THINNK when it happens or are you just a moron?

LOL

"After scanning over about half of these comments, I want to say one thing. We need an independent party that is for independents - and we should have Barack Obama lead that part because we do need someone who can bridge the gap between two divided political ideologies and actually get something done."

I could agree more PixelMarx. The only thing we are missing is the candidate. Barack could be that man. The only thing stopping him is fear. I pray for the day what you said happens. We can hope. At the very least at least we will have representation free of gop sabotage/moderates. That's all I want. CAll me crazy. I want representation from my representatives.

MikeB - you are intruding on the liberal mutual admiration society. they do not countenance any dissent. Only fawning at the feet of power and avoidance of all fact are tolerated.

notice I was the only one on this entire blog today who brought up any actual issues that exist for Hillary clinton to overcome or mitigate. not a peep from the goon squad. Instead they plan to originate a mirror blog where all will be flowers and candy. no dissesnsion, no ideas, no creativity. It is some sort of Orwellian nightmare...or dream depending on your point of view.

If their positions are so weak they can stand up to no scrutiny in the least, watch what Rudy will do to hillary when the time comes. It will be more obfuscation, non-answers, evasions and redefining the word "is" from the clintons.

Hey Libs, riddle me this:

how can you be willing to accept without question: (pick one)

1. hillary has experience, even though there is nothing to show for it.
2. If there is experience it is mostly in corruption and money laundering, although she knew nothing about this, just as she was the last to know her husband was a cheat.
3. Rush hates our troops based on two words taken out of context, yet Reid loves them despite all the slander he has uttered over the years.
4. O"reilly sucks even though everyone watches him and Olbermann is great, it just doesn't show up in the ratings somehow.
5. Media matters and Moveon are fair and balanced and have no agenda like fox does.
6. doing nothing about social security is a great plan.
7. Raising taxes will help the economy.
8. children should be raised by the teachers union and taught wierd things at a young age.
9. surrendering is a good way to win a war.
10. Talking to Iran works every time.
11. you can trust N Korea to do as they say.
12. Everyone wants socialized health care because filling out forms and waiting in line is fun.
13. Offering 5000 bucks to children is good policy and has nothing to do with vote buying.
14. After not accomplishing anything in 7 years in the Senate, you deserve a promotion.

Expected response - crickets. hillary is indefensible. funny thing is even the media won't ask these questions or any others.

I also agree that Ted Kennaddy does much more harm than good. But many of the democrats that are selling us out are moderates. They are alos part of the yale plan.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

We need a real party for the left. So the keery's clinton's leiberman's and kennaddy's couldn't stop us. That party would be unstopable and both current parties. The parties that no longer represent us, will go where they belong. Aren't they are representatives? 11% of the country is represented right now, or less. Not enough. Let's take our country back. The first steps are getting rid of the propogandsits that are dividing the nation for their own profit. That to me is treason. Party over country. 30 years for rush murdoch and hannity/o'reilly. Problem solved.

After scanning over about half of these comments, I want to say one thing. We need an independent party that is for independents - and we should have Barack Obama lead that part because we do need someone who can bridge the gap between two divided political ideologies and actually get something done.

And on Hillary Clinton - what has she proven? With her name recognition she could've made a difference in questioning the war before we invaded Iraq. The only thing she proves is that she is calculating and wants more power.

MikeB: "You are so caught up in your silly, shallow, partisan world that you cannot even see what is best for this country."

LOL you pathetic little man, you're about the only person on here who has identified himself or herself as a member of a party. I certainly haven't. That's why I mock your consistent bashing of Democrats. Get it, ace?

Do you think your self-proclaimed identification as a Democrat gives your bitter, hateful critiques more weight? Just makes you look silly.

" I am an AMERICAN first and a liberal second."

And anyone that is not, anyone that chooses a party over their own country is a traitor to the nation and should be held accountable by the law. Thirty years for partisan hacks destroying teh country. Taht will solve this issue real fast. Just be lucky the old laws regarding treason are not alive. Or are they?

Colin - You are attempting to rewrite history. Reagan merely accepted and signed into law a bill that was crafted by a Democratic Congress and Carter before him. I have no idea of whether he liked the legislation or not. I expect he did. However, the trainwreck that ocuured out of that legilation and the repeated failures to do something about it rests with the Democrats as much as it does with the Republican's. Both groups of fools, for whatever reason, have postured and played games and made a royal mess of things. Kennedy, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, all of them are too blame for the harm done to working class Amercian's. Will they pay for it? Who knows? They should, they should be run out of Washington on a rail, humiliated and reviled, but they wont, becasue silly partisan hacks will try and load the blame for this fiasco on Republican's.

Gosh, Loudmouth, how dare I! Lambasting Democrats...treason! Why, I'm just playing into the Republican hands, a dupe of Rush Limbaugh and everything wrong.

You are the primary example of the sort of brainless fool I was writing qbout earlier. You are so caught up in your silly, shallow, partisan world that you cannot even see what is best for this country. ANyone challenging your braindead kneejerk world view must somehow be "less of a Democrat". New flash! There are crooked Democrats (Kennedy, Clinton), there are Democrats that are every bid as awful as CHeney and Bush, and there are some awful good Republican's around, too. I am an AMERICAN first and a liberal second. This, stands in stark contrast to you hacks that are morons first, second, third and last.

Mike -- Reagan was in favor of amnesty. That's why, you know, he signed the bill. Here's a fun little quote from the Cato Institute:

"Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, he noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. 'It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?' Reagan asked. 'One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.'"

I respect your views, although I disagree with them, but find your willingness to ignore the fact that REAGAN disagreed with you very strange.

Ignore the peanut gallery. Lie spin anmd discreit. It's all they got. Independant thinkers see how is for the country and who is destroying it.

wEll said mikeb. Thanks for articulating the argument better than I could. You are the man

Once again, self-proclaimed Democrat MikeB takes a half-hour (at least) out of his day to craft a post lambasting Democrats.

Blarg - You're playing games with history, again. The amnesty legislation that was signed under Reagan was purely a Democratic construct. In fact, the crafting of that legislation began under Carter. Furthermore, supposedly there would be monye approriated for border fences, border patrol agents, etc. But, along came the ACLU and the Plylor Decision which created the mess we are in now. The blame for the illegal problem, and a huge problem it is, too, rests with both major parties. Segments of the Republican Party think of illegal as a ready source of cheap labor, and a way of busting unions. There is an enormous segment of the Democratic Party, hwever, who see the illegals as future Democratic voters. Both are idiots. Illegals represent another nail in the coffin of the Amercian Middle Class ands nothing more. They burn through more than 1/.3 of all social services money and cost Amercian taxpayers, in direct and indirect costs, in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars annually. Your real choices boil down to bankrupting this country or rounding them all up and deporting them. And, forget "sympathy". If you want to feel sorry for someone, feel sorry for the millions of Amercian workers who have lost their jobs directly due to the flood of illegals. Feel sorry for the millions of children who have no health care becasue employers used illegal workers as bargaining tools to lower wages and cut benefits.

Why is this poll relevant at all? Unless you are a political junkie, why would someone in Oregon or Texas or New Jersey even be paying attention right now? The only poll results that matter are Iowa and New Hampshire, and even those polls are treating answers from ambivalent and undecided voters like they are certainties. This poll is proof that those inside the Beltway are so wrapped up in the horse race that they have completely lost perspective on what matters - the substance of the candidates and how Iowans intuitively feel about them, which happen to be the two areas in which Sen. Clinton will continue to struggle.

If Hillary can poll this well for the next couple of months, it will hurt the ability of Obama and Edwards to raise money down the road. She is fortunate that the other potential nominees ran to the left of her, as current polls suggest that the next president (either Republican or Democrat) will be a moderate. An Edwards riding the middle could have been a contender this election, but he incorrectly put his money on the economy going south (which didn't happen), so he had to become angry, "Bush sucks guy" to get any attention at all. I would have loved to have seen a more moderate Obama this election, but he was counting on anti-war rage running him into office. It's also telling that the most conservative viable candidate for the Republicans is Romney. I suppose anything can happen over the next several months, but the polls suggest this will be the year of the moderate. Kudos to Hillary for guessing right. (no pun intended).

"As long as 'our website' didn't carry ads I don't think WaPo would really care if we used their content."

I dunno if that's a safe assumption. There are limits to 'fair use' in copyright law, that aren't solely tied to commercial use. My preference would be to work with WaPost rather than add another blog to the mix. But please do keep me informed, my ISP is visi, which is a dotcom.

the future is NOW

Just want to clarafy. I'm not a racist or anyihtng. I am a christian I love all races. It's simple econmics. Less people here, housing and rent go down. Less people job wages for qualified people go up.

Another flying a mexican flag needs to go to their home. I have german and native american ancestory, and dutch. You don't see me flying any flag but the U.S. Simple econimcs. When those econmics change, WITHOUT GOP SABOTAGE, the rule will change. But strong arming this country, I am agaisnt that.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

One day. When we are ready. We're not there yet. Give me 100 years. I'll do it all by myself ;)

Judge, Boko, Mark, et all..

I emailed Nick this morning -- but no response so far.

As long as 'our website' didn't carry ads I don't think WaPo would really care if we used their content. [Heck-- most of us could do quite a bit ourselves.] It's usally only a problem if you make money off their stuff. As far as advertising. it's very low in the political blogosphere now. My husband has had a political website since November 1999 [so I do know something about the way these things work] and we used to get a couple a thousand a month in ads, but spending has declined across the board except for the biggest, most well-establsihed blogs like Daily Kos.

What worked best for us re trolls, was if someone repeatedly offended others, they are just banned. If you can't act like a grownup, if you have to throw food,you have to leave the room.

Blarg, directly stated, it will be 'payback' time. Unfortunately, you appear to be late in the 40 year cycle that I see it in. I do believe that you greatly underestimate the Democratic dominence of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and beyond till 1994. Reagan was Pres during the 1980 - 1988, bush till 1992, but the Congress was controlled by the Dems, and had been for 40 years. House & Senate abuses were rarely reported, just endured. I remember the anger in 1994 when the Dems were tossed out - It was huge!

In summary, why would I think the Democrats caused this? Because of the 40 year Dem dominance, the Republican (over)reaction in 1994, and now the Democratic (over)reaction to the Republican 1994 reaction...

Do I think this is good? No. But I would challenge any Dem to call off moveon.org, or Reid or the NYT... it won't happen. So, consequently, get ready for a brutal 2008 - 2014 HRC Administration.

Drindl, Bokonon, Mark in Austin: I sent my e-mail address to the address FemaleNick gave us and she sent me back several responses along with a new address. I sent her a note at that new address. No response so far. She may be a night person or some facet of reality may have intruded on her plans.

My comment to her was that IF the WaPo fails to enforce it's own rules (which I still hope it will), have you considered how to do carry over the audience? Should we cut and paste the text of CC's blog (which, one could argue, is not part of the print edition and has no commercial value) on a new website and then enter in "For intelligent discussion of this topic please visit XXXXX.com" on the WaPo comment site. Not sure how well that has worked for Truthhunter and others who have tried to gin up traffic but if we regularly told everyone that all of 'us' (meaning our monikers) now posted there it might succeed. We'd probably get hate mail from the WaPo eventually but it would be a wonderful way of getting their attention.

"granting citizenship (which you called amnesty) or deporting them. Which do you prefer"

Deporting all. All races. Go back to their home country and come to this country the right way, as our ancestors did

"legalization. So it looks like you might actually agree with the Republicans on this one"

This is the only issue. But the gop support of my position is a farce. If they truly had this position why would they do what they have done for last 30 years? Why are they not enforcing the law. But I'm with some repugs on this one. The d's are not with the program, they think they will get votes. But yes. This is the one issue I'm with SOEM repugs on/

"Rufus, what about the illegals that are already here? You say you want to enforce the current laws, which basically means keeping the status quo."

No it doesn't mean that. Just because the gop isn't enforcing the laws doesn't mean no laws exist. Do we have a minimum wage? What happens to employers that pay below this if I work? When I go for a job I have to get much info. When I am arrested I have to give info.

The laws are on the books. The gop chooses not to enforce. When illegals are encountered by law enofrcment, get them out. Empolyer's find illegals report to ice. Why is ice not busting peopel all day everyday. What do they get paid for? They bust people once a month/ Waht are they doing the rest of the time? Eating doughnits? Do the job. The gop has no intention of enforing any laws. But the laws are on the books, they are just not being enforced.

Bill -- Yes, "Democrats" controlled Congress for 40 years but your narrative seems to gloss over (1) that in many of those years there was a working conservative majority b/c of the issue stances of the southern democrats; and (2) that Congress was balanced out by a Republican President for most of that time.

I do agree with you that Democrats in the 70's and 80's had grown complacent and that ethics were an issue, but that really has very little to do with Hillary Clinton or the strategy of the Republican party. Irrespective of corruption that did exist in past Democratic Congress's, the reality is that it only took Republicans a decade to reach the same level (and worse). And the right wing noise machine of today has nothing to do with fighting for good government and everything to do with blindly smearing whoever has a 'D' next to their name.

Oh, and your "liberal media" reference is a hysterical. A study recently came out examining the composition of major newspapers editorial sections and the composition of their political columns. Overwhelmingly, the opinion page is dominated by conservative writers. Add that onto the fact that Clinton was savaged in the '90's by EVERY paper, including the NY Times and Washington Post, and your argument of a liberal media is quite ridiculous.

Mark, if you see this, I spoke with FemaleNick last night too, and am interested in what you she + Judge C were discussing. If you are in touch with her today, tell her to get back with more info if/when she has it - I'm not sure she is checking the email she gave me any more. If this is serious stuff, I have a more legitimate email address I can pass on t her and to you through her.
Also, yes, I will be glad to provide some input on a letter to CC tonight...

More twisted history from Bill: "What you are forgetting is the 1970's & 1980's where the Democratic Party was the original "Party of Corruption" and did everything possible to shut down the Republican party. Why do you think the Republicans WERE so angry in the 1990's?"

Let's see. The 1970s. Who was president for the first half of that decade? Oh, some guy named Nixon. Pure as the driven snow, eh bill? Clearly the Democrats were the original "Party of Corruption." Guess Teapot Dome never happened either.

And the 1980s. Who was president? Ronald Reagan, elected by massive margins, and then GHW Bush, also elected overwhelmingly. The GOP also controlled the Senate for six years. Yep, the Dems did a great job of shutting down the Republican Party in the 1980s. Great explanation for Republican anger in the 1990s.

Bill, some friendly advice. Put down the crack pipe. Step away from the crack pipe.

Rufus, what about the illegals that are already here? You say you want to enforce the current laws, which basically means keeping the status quo. But when it comes to illegal immigrants who are already here, there aren't many options besides granting citizenship (which you called amnesty) or deporting them. Which do you prefer?

I asked because your anti-amnesty position didn't seem consistent with your politics in general. It's true that Reagan supported amnesty in the 80s, but right now most Republicans are virulently anti-immigrant. McCain's candidacy was destroyed partially by his support for eventual legalization. So it looks like you might actually agree with the Republicans on this one.

Bill, you seem to be completely ignoring the Republican role in this. You say that if Hillary is elected, she'll be smeared by the media, and it's the Democrats' fault. (I'm still not clear why the Democrat-controlled media, as you see it, would smear the Democratic president. But that's another issue.) The Republicans, presumably, would be the ones doing the smearing. But you say it's not their fault, because the Democrats started it.

What you say about the 80s seems to be a total non-sequitor. The Democrats tried to shut down the Republicans in the 80s? (Obviously with very little success.) What does that have to do with accusing a sitting president of rape and murder, as the right-wing media did in the 90s? You say that the Democrats were corrupt in the 80s, so therefore it's their fault that the media will smear Hillary Clinton. I don't see the connection.

Sorry, Bill is not zouk. Somewhat smarter. But just as twisted.

"Sorry if I represent your ideals."

Misrepresent. Sorry. I don't represent anybody. I have no candidate, before the spinners say I represent a candidate of a movement. I have no movement or candidates. I am an individual. but I can hope at least. Until the gop silences the left compleatly.

"But one day, 10 years from now."

100 years from now. don't want to sacer you old people

i feel you mike. But I have to try. Even thouh democratic socialism scares them to death. i have to try. The only reason they are so scared is the red scare of the fifites terrified them. the gop thought police fired people and labeled them as traitors. They tried and destory the left and they continue. Bu tI am the bad guy for adding balance. I can take their pain and hate. I am a real chrisitan. But I have to try. I can't let the gop gut my coutnry without putting up a fight.

I fell you though mike. Frustrating. Sorry if I represent your ideals. Not my intention. I can only do me. I don't represnet democrats mikeb or anyone but myself.

Blarg... and Loudoun:

Actually Gentlemen, I go back to the 60's, with some intense politics in the 70's and a lower level involvement continuously since then:

What you are forgetting is the 1970's & 1980's where the Democratic Party was the original "Party of Corruption" and did everything possible to shut down the Republican party. Why do you think the Republicans WERE so angry in the 1990's? Combine that with a media scene that had not yet seen Talk Radio, Blogs, and Fox news, and it was all a very one-sided, Democratic-liberal PR trip.

Perhaps you are the Trolls? Maybe Kiddies?

Just kidding; but if you ignore the 40 year Democratic domination of Congress, you miss a lot of negative history.

"The fools that support her still are idiots."

"People here aren;t interested in genuine discussion, rational thought" - MikeB

In 2002, Bush, neocon propagandists and their accomplices in the media (read Wash Post) shamelessly convinced an incredulous public of the imminent threat of Saddam's (nonexistent) WMD. Today, the democratic neo-imperialists, entrenched Beltway hooligans and media abettors (read Chris Cillizza) have again debased factual public discourse to "celebrity sightings" and have appeared to convince the "Paris Hilton" democratic demographic of Hillary's coronation.

There is no doubt that a society, which worships at the altar of Britney, Paris and O.J., probably deserve Hillary and Bubba, but I doubt that future dead and wounded soldiers and marines would concur?

'did zouk say something? I think i'm getting better at reducing his posts to background noise level.'

Yeah, me too... as soon as I realize it's another volley of lies and smears [which is always apparent after one or two words] I just scroll on by...

What's up blarg.

I have said here many times ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. I am for a one world government eventually. It is our only hope as a race as I see it. The borders that divide us don't really exist. They are lines drown on a map to divide us. " The map is not the territory"

With that said, we are a sovergn nation. What the illegals are doing is strong arming the system. I am not for that. I want america to enforce the immagration laws on the books. I am a democratic socialist. I think we pay for social programs in the form of tax, but we don't get any of the benifets. We don't have a real count on how many people need socail programs becasue it is flooded with illegals, many races not just mexican.

To me illegal immagration works only in the favot of the gop.

1.Flood the social programs, good for gop. Divide and conquer. Bueacratic chaos.

2. housing and rent goes up. good for the gop, land owners and the rich

3. Job market. wages go down. good for the gop.

In my opinion american democracy has been stunted by the gop, since the red scare of the fifties. I think we need to right america. Do what the country was founded for. If we did that all nation would want to follow our lead becasue the results would be so positive. Democracy would flow over the world lie a great volcano. But e need to right our ship here first. Destroying the country and divide and conquer for profit is not cool. But one day, 10 years from now. There will be no borders. We are one people. We are one world. Enough divide and conquer. Those that would destoy the country and fight their own countrymen, try and sabotage, are TRAITORS to the country. IMO

'bill' is zouk. look how much alike all his posts under diffeent names are.

rufus - People here aren;t interested in genuine discussion, rational thought, or much of anything else that chaellenges their fanatically held beliefs. The Hillary crowd wont hear of anything critical of her. She could be found out as an Al Qaida agent and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to her base. Pretty much the same thing with the Romney crowd. His kids are cowards who have more imprtant things to do than serve in a war that their daddy supports. Ditto for Guliani and the rest. As far as I can tell, there are a very few genuine populists running for office, people without ties to special interest groups or "money men" or who didn't sell their very soul to some collection of corporations. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the money race right now simply becasue she accepts obscene amounts of money from big businesses and, in spite of her blathering otherwise, she DOES do their bidding. The fools that support her still are idiots. She would be a worse choice than four more years of Bush...and I loathe Bush! No, the problem is with the "fans" of these candidates. The nonthinking, fanatical, "my mind is made up" crowd of clodhoppers that inhabit forums like this. This chattering class is driving much of the media attention. Of couirse, it doesn't help that the MSM writers have the collective brain of a guppy, but there you have it. If you want a debate, go find someone with an open mind who will actually listen to an argument. Here, all you will find are mindless fools spewing drivel and nonsense, cheerleaders of candidate as if they were a professional sport team.

Fort Benning is Hell! - Sherman

Blarg: Bill Sandford's comments about "hate politics" border on the nonsensical. There are two possible explanations:

1. He is a troll.

2. He is extremely young and knows literally nothing about anything that took place before 2000.

Bill, you think that hate politics were started by the Democrats? What cave are you living in? Think about the right's treatment of Clinton in the 90s. They regularly accused him of rape and murder. But if the right-wing media goes after Hillary, it's the Democrats' fault? How does that make sense?

So, Rufus, what's your position on immigration?

"The context? At the time, eastern Pennsylvania was at the edge of the frontier. People were afraid of raids from the local Native American tribes, and begged the British government to quarter troops in their towns and in their homes."

NOT MORE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. GETTING REAL OLD GOP. LIARS AND DPROPOGANDISTS

Oh, and it's going down in reno. If you saw the news. both ways. Crackdown on illegals and the goper's starting to get worked up. Scary time in reno. I fear for my children.

Illegal immagration is a gop issue. Regan issued the last blanket amnesty. They want three things (the gop). Low wages for employee's, high rent and housign costs, and the flood of social programs. If we had a real count we could he more as a nation. We pay for the social programs we just don't get the benifets becasue the system is flooded. The gop plan.

This is why they have done nothing in 25 years since reagan offered the amnesty.

Dave!,

I thought I would provide some context to at least one of the founders' statements.

Franklin did say something along the lines of, "Those who would give up essential liberty for a measure of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The context? At the time, eastern Pennsylvania was at the edge of the frontier. People were afraid of raids from the local Native American tribes, and begged the British government to quarter troops in their towns and in their homes.

Of course, this quartering of troops became one of the catalysts for the Revolution. It was specifically mentioned in the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence. And the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits the forced quartering of troops, so obviously the issue was still in the forefront of the founders' minds.

All of this for a practice that we begged for so we could feel "safe".

I have questions. I want the coutnry to grow. I'm not the bad guy. I'm just tryin gto poin tthe finger at the bad guy's like lennon and mlk did in the nixon years. I won't hold this blog down. But show some respect, as i show for you. The more my questions and issues are answered, the less frutrated I get. Simple. I would probaly post 5 posts a day if there was real political conversation here. I don't get real conversation just like you simon blarg and drindl. So if I don't get it why should you? Why are you rthoughts and opinions greater than mine. I put the work in everyday. I see all the news. what do you people do to help this country?

Peace.

Fred Thompson 08

As a republican, I would say this:

Hillary is probably a good & decent person. I've watched her since the Arkansas days. She is probably going to win the 2008 Election. But...

She does have the innate ability to infuriate conservative people. And after the last 7 years of unsurpassed Hate Politics practiced by the Democrats against another "good & decent person", President Bush, Hillary is going to reap what the Dems have sown. Toss in Hate Journalism as practiced by the MSM, with payback by the emerging conservative media, and it doesn't bode well for a future HRC Administration.

This is not good for the country, but it is what the Democrats and their MSM allies have brought us down to.

I may be playing fair. But no one is answering my questions. So what am I to do. i want real political conversation.

you can't have your cake and eat it to. Answer my posts, somebody.

I fnot of my posts are answered, that is no fun for me. I may have to go back to posting news and articles. Or we can have political dialogue. That's what this site is for right.

"So if it doesn't effect you directly, but destroys the country, you ok with it. But if they are destroying the country doesn't it effect you? I don't get it."


I know you don't.

But the fateful events of the day seem to have started when a bullet fired by a Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi man who was driving. His foot apparently remained on the accelarator and his car began to move toward the Blackwater convoy. Blackwater guards then began shooting wildly in different directions as panicked Iraqis tried to escape from the scene. In what seems to be the most shocking revelation of the story, after that round of shooting stopped, the Blackwater convoy moved north and began firing at cars again.

Checking in at lunch - y'all had a good morning until, well, you know.

Rufi seems to be playing fair so far today.

As we used to say:

"What Blarg and bsimon said."

I exchanged info with FemaleNick last night.

I am going to incorporate roo's and Boko's advice in the letter to the WaPo, a draft of which I hope to post tonight. If Judge has thought of anything, or bsimon, or Blarg, or any of you, post it later, OK?

Douglas (the former slave) and Malcolm X (the civil rights leader) both had a white parent and a black parent.

They were not afforded any different treatment than someone of pure African ancestry.

It's because of the so-called "one drop rule." Google it, check your history.

The bi-racial obsession is nothing more than a divisive way of trying to imply that Obama has some sort of "advantage", when history clearly contradicts that perspective in my view.

"Do you understand, or has this gone over your head as well?"

I got it. So if it doesn't effect you directly, but destroys the country, you ok with it. But if they are destroying the country doesn't it effect you? I don't get it.

Do you have kids? If the GOp wins the presidency their only hope to continue the war is a draft. Then would you care about the propoganda and lies they are spewing? I have a 19 year old brother. He WILL not go through what I went through. The man that came back from fort benning is not the same man that left from san jose. My brother will keep HIMslef.

Just my opinion. I feel 60% of the country is hiding their head in the sand. But you have your opinion, I don't get it, and I have mine.

There are three typos in this post!

Alan says
"So I respectfully disagree with you. In America, bi-racial or multi-racial = black.

And Sen Obama is a black man in America."


I can't speak to the lineage of Messrs Douglas and X, but Mr Obama has one white parent and one black parent. Yet, as you rightfully point out, in America we call him 'black'. Why do you suppose that is?

As I noted above, I did not intend to derail the conversation with that observation. Still, its one I find worth mentioning from time to time.

Diane in DC: I think most dems would love to have another eight years as we had when Bubba was Prez. Nice to see a little support for Hillary for a change on this Blog.

"For those that want me silenced, do you feel the same way about fox and rush? If not, why?"

The thing with fox & rush are that they aren't interrupting the programs that I choose. You, on the other hand, are disrupting what would otherwise be (zouk excepted) an interesting and occasionally informative discussion.

If you want to post your garbage somewhere else, it won't bother me one whit. If Rush and fox start coming here & posting off-topic rants, I'd ask that they be banned.

Do you understand, or has this gone over your head as well?

blarg writes
"It's true that Obama is black."

No, its not. Sen Obama is bi-racial.

Posted by: bsimon | October 3, 2007 10:10 AM

bsimon,
Is that true of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, among many, many others? Many blacks in America can't identify their white ancestors since the offspring of such unions were sent back to the cotton fields with no acknowledgment of "bi-racial" lineage. Check the birth certificates--no matter how light-skinned you are, the birth certificate says "colored" assuming you're over 30 (maybe "Negro" if you're somewhat older). So I respectfully disagree with you. In America, bi-racial or multi-racial = black.

And Sen Obama is a black man in America.

Dear Diary,
That awful person is back, again. But, that is not going to rain on my parade! I am so excited. Hillary is surging! This isn't the surging we did in high school with sewing machines. It means that she is ahead in the polls. Foshizzle my nizzle - yeah! Some mean people keep saying that this is only because she is more popular with newspaper writers and the biggies in the Democrat party. As if that is a big help. When my friend Corey ran for senior class vice president and I was the editor of The Viking I tried to promote her. I wrote about how she would require healthy vegetarian meals for lunch, a breakfast program to feed to poor of the community in our school cafeteria, require all males students to take a class on sexism and all womyn students to take a class on feminist philosophy, and promote peace by banning phallocentric language and violent sports like football and do away with the dance team as being sexists. She lost anyways.

Last night Hillary and Nancy explained how it was in the olden days when womyn didn't shave their legs or under their arm or anything to show their empowerment and freedom from men. I thought that was so dark, because it limits the kind of styles you can wear. At the Gap I saw this really cute new sleeveless top and with hairy armpits and all you couldn't wear it. Today, they said, womyn can demonstrate their empowerment by demanding their rightful place as leaders and wearing really nice business suits. Hillary confused the male dominated press corps, and showed their sexist tendencies, by showing some cleavage thereby proving her desirable but criticized them for noticing. That was so wicked!

Well, I've got to go. My assignment today is to visualize world peace. Ta-ta.

I love quotations, probably more than most. But even I try not to pin arguments on the out of context sayings of our founders and others. As an aside, Malcolm X's quote is funny given his other more famous one (...by any means necessary).

"If you are an Obama supporter, you should face the fact that you have a huge uphill climb in addition to the fact that Clinton is being chauffeured up the hill. "

Drivin' Miss Daisy

For those that want me silenced, do you feel the same way about fox and rush? If not, why?

did zouk say something? I think i'm getting better at reducing his posts to background noise level.

"Fox Says Democrats Exploit Children Like Saddam Hussein Did
Reported by Melanie - Tue 6:59 PMYesterday the Service Workers International Union (SEIU) and "hundreds of children" and "consumers," held a rally in Washington, D.C., to "protest President Bush's expected veto of legislation that would provide health coverage to nearly 10 million children whose families cannot afford private health insurance." Ted Kennedy joined the rally and delivered this message.
"

r

"Bill "we don't do personal attacks" O'Reilly calls David Brock "a despicable human being""

Wacthing o'reilly smear media matters last night was funny. I saw him pause for a split second. He was attacking and smearing them, while being angry he was smeared. Although media matters merely repeated his words back to him.

I feel no pity fo r them. Rush hannity and o'reilly REALLY do smear people dialy, all day. the hypocricy and doublethin k of the gop is on full idsplay for those that give a sh*t.

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Hear, hear, Bok, nice post. Guess zouk is a nationalist, since nothing motivates him except hatred for half the country... and money.

oops.

"He who would sacrafice freedom for security."

Sorry. i misquoted a founding father. Sorry :)b

I know, Loudon. That's what someone [my guess is RNC, although it could be a corporate group like exxon, he certainly does hammer on his global warming crap] is paying him to do. The hours are just too regular. I'm going to send an email to CC and suggest he try to save it, by enforcing pause between postings and so forth.

Nobody wants to silence you Ruf. They just want you not to hog. The short posts are fine.

good posts Bokonon .

But you forget ben franklin.

"He who would sacrafice safety for security, deserves neither."

drindl and Loud and dumb - I completely agree that adding in some sense to your lib admiration society ruins it for you. the reason is that your pea-brained arguments can't satand up to the slightest scrutiny. It is the same all over Liberal land. Avoid discussion of any facts, your idealogy can't stand up to them.

answer a single policy prescription if you can. I listed several misgivings about hillary above which are stated policies of hers. Defend them if you can. Otherwise admit your are weak and feeble and don't deserve any attention.

Or attack the messenger as usual.

"Maybe Rush got away with smears like this in the past, but he's not going to on our watch," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, a group closely aligned with Congressional Democrats that is behind a new advertisement taking on Mr. Limbaugh."

Isn't one of the main goals of the people in charge of political parties to not have a protracted, costly, close primary so that that person can focus on the other party and save their war chest for the "real" opponent? Hasn't the mantra of the Democrats been "Anybody but a republican"? My question is why it comes as a surprise to anyone (especially anyone here) that the media and party officials have already appear to have selected Hillary as the candidate? Yes there is dissention from the rank and file, especially about her war vote, but it does not appear to be from the head of party or the people that matter. If you are an Obama supporter, you should face the fact that you have a huge uphill climb in addition to the fact that Clinton is being chauffeured up the hill. But rest assured, there are people that know this is the best...

A few things I found on patriotism, to be looked at in the context of wiretapping, the Patriot Act, etc:

"He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot."
-Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
-Mark Twain

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
-Thomas Paine

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."
-Malcolm X

"Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country."
-Bertrand Russell

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!"
-Albert Einstein

"Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong."
-James Bryce

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
-Charles DeGaulle

"Patriotism means unqualified and unwavering love for the nation, which implies not uncritical eagerness to serve, not support for unjust claims, but frank assessment of its vices and sins, and penitence for them"
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched."
-Guy de Maupassant

"I understand you wish to avoid the media matters link to hillary and the moveon link to NYT and hillary, it is unfortunate when the lib agenda is revealed in all its ugliness. I sympathize that you wish to erase the early support for surrender with some partriotic blustering now that the surge has worked splendidly."

WOW. HAve you ever listen to rush? Have you ever watched fox. Right-wing smear merchants, DAILY, all day. They smear the left and democrats all day. Forgive us if we don't pity rush. And buddy, we have the tapes. Enough with the spin and lies. We have the tape. you people look like fools.

Go Fred thompson. I have to balance it out.

Hannity for president. Ok, good.

Caller: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these antiwar soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

Limbaugh: The phony soldiers.

so colin - in your world - rush hates the troops based on a single highly edited use of two words, despite years of preaching about american troops, while at the same time harry reid, who proclaimes defeat, torture and cowardice is a great supporter of our troops. It is a true skill to be able to ignore the vast majority of evidence and latch onto one conveneient sliver of propoganda. you will need this ability to support hillary.

And can you explain why Kerry, still hasn't released his military record, despite promising to do so years ago? what is he hiding? how can one get three (not one) purple hearts and not visit a hospital?

I understand you wish to avoid the media matters link to hillary and the moveon link to NYT and hillary, it is unfortunate when the lib agenda is revealed in all its ugliness. I sympathize that you wish to erase the early support for surrender with some partriotic blustering now that the surge has worked splendidly.

but the problem is that we now have Fox and the Internet and the MSM lies are not swallowed whole any longer. the truth is out there and Harry Reid can't rewrite history any more than you can proclaim hillary experienced or Rush anti-military. you have to be a total moonbat to fall for that junk. and the bloggers on this site are demonstrating their ignorance and proclivities every day. and the more your message gets out, the lower you sink. Media matters is now exposed for all the world to see as a Hillary smear org, just like moveon, CNN, NYT, Olbermann and the rest. this genie will not go back into the bottle.

"Ann Coulter Declares: 'If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president'... "

Ann Coulter hates everyone. And especially hates women, because she wants to be a man. And almost is... but not quite.

drindl: Zouk will bring down this forum, just like other good political discussion forums have been wrecked by other idiots (cnn.com chatrooms, Yahoo message boards to name two).

"Yes Rufus, the short posts are better, just let other people have a turn too. Play nice."

What about my other posts?

If I post that global warming doesn't exist and "GO NRA", can I stay? Will they silence me if I don't speak my mind drindl? What good is me blogging if I can't speak my mind? Or am I just hogging the site?

The idea of Hillary as a vehicle of change in Washington makes me cackle!!! What we must always remember is, much as the Clintons want to help the country and the world, the good of the Clintons will alway come first.

Why were fundraising numbers up? Because she transferred $10 million from Senate fund. That's not far from Mitt Romney dipping into his personal bank account to up his numbers. Obama raised his money the old-fashioned way - he earned it.

Also, how about Hillary's triangulation of Iran? After Sen. Webb gave his eloquent - and spot-on - oration before the Kyl-Lieberman vote, she went ahead and gave the President discretion to bomb Iran. Now, post-debate, she's decided to co-sponsor a bill with Webb. She's trying to have it both ways. (It did piss me off that Obama didn't vote.)

As for the Illinois senator, anyone familiar with his Senate campaign knows he supersedes race. Nobody expected him to win the Democratic nomination. How did he do it? By traveling throughout small-town Illinois - lily-white, conservative - and winning their hearts and minds. Here in Chicago, I live near the neighborhood of his toughest competition. Even that ward went Obama.

Yes, racism is alive and well in America, but many of us are ready to rise above it, especially our youth. If they do turn up at the polls, they won't be voting Clinton.

12 o clock and zouk clocks in, right on schedule. You're right, Colin, he works by the hour--I think from a noon to 7 shift sounds about right. So the thread will be destroyed with his rants from now on. I wish CC could do something to stop his hijack, maybe a waiting time between posts or something... registration would help.

Yes Rufus, the short posts are better, just let other people have a turn too. Play nice.

"Ann Coulter Declares: 'If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president'... "

Blackwater is implicated in killing dozens of people, but not one of the responsible employees has ever faced criminal investigation or prosecution. The US State Department is responsible for referring possible criminal actions by its contractors to the US Justice Department for possible criminal investigations and prosecutions. But it had never happened.

More smear of John Kerry -- brilliant. EVERY SINGLE man on the boat with him backs Kerry up, and quite a few of those guys are republicans. Yet the GOP noise machine keeps attacking him. Truly classy.

What's your excuse for that one zouk. "He's as bad as the terrorist bombers." wow. The real bombers did that to him

"Comedian and anti-troop, anti-veteran propagandist, Rush Limbaugh, gets another smackdown from VoteVets.org. Iraq veteran Brian McGough, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in Iraq after shrapnel lodged in his skull, sends a message directly to the draft-dodging Limbaugh, telling him to stop telling lies about his service. Vote Vets isn't about to let up on the coward after his phony troop statement and I applaud them for keeping up the pressure. Will Rush ever accept Jon Soltz's challenge to meet with him face to face? Figure the odds...

UPDATE: (Nicole) Never one to stop digging when finding himself in a hole, Rush lashed out at McGough on his radio program, likening him a suicide bomber:

On the October 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

The ultimate irony? McGough received his permanent brain damage from shrapnel from a suicide bomber. Classy move, Rush.

"

Good cut and paste job lying about Rush a few posts up. Notice that folks pretending Rush didn't say what he said don't like to talk about the unedited transcript.

It's all a waste of time, but I miss the days when being a republican didn't mean you were allergic to facts. Sigh.

2 many Obama supporters blogging away here
Game over
She votes like a Republican but the Republicans hate her?
Time for her to start building bridges to independents and Republicans who are sick of what GWB-Cheney have done to their party and country and preparing to govern not appealing to the loony left whose candidates can't win nationwide
As some one else said the other day
Bob Graham for VP and take Florida

In truth, Limbaugh was very specific as to which "phony soldiers" he was referring. For Jesse McBeth, the moniker clearly fits. He was drubbed out of the military during boot camp (after only forty four days to be precise), but then went on to claim he had been a member of the Special Forces and under such false credentials delivered a plethora of fabricated stories, deriding the military and the mission. He was prominent in the media for a time.

Likewise Beauchamp, who did in fact serve overseas, but whose fabricated fables of abuse and atrocity have been thoroughly refuted by the rest of his outfit.

Limbaugh never even went so far as to include among the phonies Senator and former presidential wannabe John Kerry (D.-MA), whose entire "tour of duty" in Vietnam exceeded McBeth's enlistment by only two and a half months. And that brief Southeast Asian visit netted him three Purple Hearts under highly dubious circumstances.

Of course if Kerry's version of the affair is correct, he could permanently put the matter to rest while completely discrediting his critics simply by releasing his military records, which, to date, he steadfastly refuses to do.

Against this murky backdrop, Democrats on Capitol Hill find an occasion in which they can wave their flags and laud their commitment to God, Country, and the troops, or at least those troops who concoct stories which discredit the terror war and the President's strategy to win it. Such people certainly deserve and receive the unbridled adoration and support of the Democrats.

But perhaps the most telling aspect of this latest offensive is the liberal characterization of Limbaugh, on several occasions just this past week, as "unpatriotic." This is quite an accusation coming from people who insist that the most heinous crime any conservative can commit is to "question the patriotism" of America's leftists as they deride the troops, while crediting America's enemies with every rightness of motive and strategy.

fRED THOMPSON 08

Pat Tillman.

PAT TILLMAN.

Remember that name gop. You can silence us all day everyday at every forum. But we will still hold the teachings of the christ close to our heart. No amount of pain to us or silecning of us will change what's in our hearts.

GOD IS LOVE. GOD IS HOPE. GOD IS GUILT

the shamelessness and brazenness of Reid's lies stand as proof that he and his political supporters understand and accept such fraud as an inherent and viable component of the liberal-Democrat playbook.

Come on Dianne, that really makes no sense whatsoever.

Progressive -- settle down. I for one don't hate Hillary at all. I'm not crazy for her and prefer other candidates but will happily vote for her in a general election. My problem with your statements about HRC is that you seem to be so obcessed with her that you feel compelled to denegrate all other Dem candidates. That's just silly.

Oh, and relative to my and others "criticism of Hillary." She's better than any republican on all the issues, but what is her so called experience advantage really based on? That's a legitimate question and has nothing to do with "GOP talking points." She's questioning Obama's experience, but she herself would bring one of the thinnest elected records into the WH of anyone in recent memory. Reason not to vote for her? Hardly. But it does tend to weaken her argument against Obama. I'd be interested in hearing a substantive response on this one, though I won't hold my breath.

Second, your argument that Obama has "zero chance" to win the general election seems to be based upon (1) his being a first term senator; and (2) his race. Taking the second issue first, polling data tends to show that race will not be much of an issue for Obama. Name one state that Kerry won that Obama would lose b/c he's black. Let me help you out -- there isn't one. Conversely, Obama runs strongly (as does Hillary) in several states that Kerry lost. In short, ANY of the top Democrats should go into the general election favored. As to the experience issue, Hillary has 4 more years as a Senator than Obama. He's held elected office longer than she has. Comparatively, both are pretty darn inexperienced. But guess what? The public doesn't care. Look at who has won POTUS elections over the last 25 years. Carter served as governor for 4 yeras. Clinton had no experience with national issues when he ran in '92. GWB was objectively unqualified to be President. Whether they should care or not, that's simply not an issue that the public focuses on.

Smarting from the public relations disaster of the Betray us ad, a Soros-funded group, Media Matters, ginned up a fake scandal to demonstrate to those who rely on the mainstream media for their news, that "both sides do it."

Congressional and Senate Democrats, along with the entire liberal political cabal, have been in a staged uproar ever since last week when Limbaugh made reference to Jesse McBeth and Scott Thomas Beauchamp who, adorning themselves with fraudulent credentials as members in good standing of the United States military, have been caught in blatant fraud, as they seek to make a case against the war.Rush Limbaugh's attackers have intentionally mischaracterized his criticism of such individuals as an assault the U.S. armed forces, asserting that he derided any troops who oppose the war as "phony soldiers."

In truth, he did no such thing, and his accusers know it. But why should they hesitate to lie about his words when they have gotten so much political mileage in the past few years by lying about virtually every other aspect of the terror war, the Republican Party, the military, and conservatism in general?

Now this is funny. The idiot kingofzouk lecturing Democrats on whom to support.

and guess what, sfb, I'm not a Democrat, despite your pathetic, repetitive bleats and mewls. You still mistake my loathing of rightwingnut fools like you for being a Democrat. Just shows how dumb you are (to use one of your favorite words, dummy).

There is no such thing as gloabal warming.

Altough saudi arabia attacked us on 9/11 and in iraq. Their oil is more important that ameicans. They should have equal access too running his country as Isreal

BEtter? Can I still blog?

Who are these people? I am highly involved in local Democratic party activities and I do not know a single person who likes Hillary. No real democrat what to see another Clinton kingdom.

'WASHINGTON - When a team of FBI agents lands in Baghdad this week to probe Blackwater security contractors for murder, it will be protected by bodyguards from the very same firm, the Daily News has learned.
Half a dozen FBI criminal investigators based in Washington are scheduled to travel to Iraq to gather evidence and interview witnesses about a Sept. 16 shooting spree that left at least 11 Iraqi civilians dead.'

What a great idea. What a really g