bsimon,
"Well... I think the 'trickle down' nonsense fit in there somewhere too." When did the "tickle down nonsense" end? It's been close to 25 years. Did Clinton or either Bush roll back the upper end tax rate to pre-Reagan levels? A deficit does not matter. A huge deficit might. A huge permanent deficit does. Schumer is only responsible in that he is going to try to pay for huge and wide ranging government programs by raising taxes. That is the definition of "tax and spend". I have no defense of recent Republican fiscally conservative practices (or lack thereof). Little did any fiscal conservative think that "compassionate conservative" meant spending like a liberal without the slightest attempt to pay for it.

rush rush zoukzouk

Why do the spineless always retreat? There have been those in the west who say the down tickets are definitely going to be hurt with Clinton on top.
It is a known fact that if Hillary is the nominee not only would she cause a polarization in her own party, with about half refusing to support her, but, she will lose both houses. She will loose any gains made in the west and solidify the republican south.
I do not see any up in a Hillary nomination except for the establishment foisting another loser on the party for yet another election.
Hillary gets the nomination and the republicans gain in the congress and hold the white house yet, the establishment in Washington refuse to see this and don't care.

hey chris did you guys forget to report this?

By ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Oct 3, 2007 (AP)
Font Size

E-mail
Print
Share

Released Oct 3
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071003-2topline.pdf&id=3668

Hillary Clinton 35
Obama 23

A new AP-Ipsos poll shows Clinton ahead of Obama 35-23 -- nowhere near the 33 point advantage shown in the ABC/Post poll. The Obama camp offers up some triumphant sarcasm. "A shockwave was sent through Washington late today as the AP released a poll showing that Obama halved Clinton's lead in national polling in just one day," the Obama camp says in a deadly serious press release (we swear this is as real as the Thompson memo above is fake) obtained exclusively by The Note.

Blacks are split down the middle over Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential race, seeing both as on their side, a new poll says.
In the late September poll, Clinton led Obama among whites by 35 percent to 18 percent, Blacks were essentially evenly divided, 40 percent for Obama and 38 percent for Clinton. Among all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, Clinton led by 35 percent to 23 percent. All those measurements have been steady for months in the AP-Ipsos poll.
Faced with choosing between two potential White House firsts the first black president or the first female black women split 47 percent for Clinton, 37 percent for Obama. Clinton has led decisively among all women nationally.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3685236

Released Oct 3
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071003-2topline.pdf&id=3668

Ann C. said: "According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

So, let me get this straight: The men and women who put their lives on the line for the US preferred a draft-dodger to a decorated war hero by a margin of 4 to 1? I think this this tells us more about the effectiveness of smear campaigns than it does about people's loyalties. Why is it every time someone opposes this war people like you decry them as un or anti-American?? A person can be a patriot and disagree with bad policy and a bad war, surely.
Or are you really saying that only those who vote republican are 'real' Americans? Sounds very much like Communist China to me...

Can we all stop ragging on Clinton and give her a break?

That's crazy jason. i clicked on your link, and saw this

"The premise of the Civil War storyline involves the introduction of a Superhuman Registration Act in the United States. Similar acts have been used as literary devices in Watchmen, Uncanny X-Men, DC: The New Frontier, Powers, and The Incredibles, though never on a scale such as permanently altering an entire pantheon of established pop culture icons. Millar has said:"

The watchmen. WHO WATHCES THE WATCHMEN? That's crazy, I was just talking abou tthat book yesterday. Crazy

JasonL you have tried every rational way, but rufus hasn't. Help is available to him, and it wouldn't cost him a cent.

A coward? Please, Rufus. Enough with the name calling. There isn't enough information for me to go on. Feel free to check out wikipedia for a decent synopsis of the events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_%28comics%29

They're also available by download off of bittorrent somewhere, I'm sure.

I just can't understand why you refuse to act liek a normal person on this blog. We;ve tried every rational way of dealing with this issue. That's why I strongly suggest reform of the way commenting works. I'm just so tired of having to wade through BS and belittlement to get to the nuggets of decent conversation.

How much stock do the Clintons own in Washington Post? It would be news if a conservative stalwart said that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a drag on the ticket, but the Sr. Senator from New York, and Clinton supporter, pontificating this is just Clinton PR. WaPo isn't even feigning unbiased journalism any more when it comes to its Clinton coverage!

the coward route, eh. Ok. That is your choice.

you see where I'm coming from? Do you hear me now?

"Refusing to fight back agaisnt his countryman. one is a patriot, one THINKS he's a patriot. But would a patriot attack his own countryman? And is iron man (the corporation) holding him back, for the good of money (the economy)?"
-Rufus
Unfortunately, that picture is not labeled with the comic it's from. Out of context I can't tell you what's going on there. I can tell you that U.S, Agent is a former soldier and most definitely a hero.
------------
P, I'm not saying she could win traditionally blue states and two more. There are more purple states than just Ohio and Florida and I think she can win them. And who says governing is hard with only a slight majority of electoral votes? Didn't seem to bother George W. Bush much. In fact, I believe he said he had "mandate" in 2001.

"The 'Reagan shebboleth' is not that 'deficits don't matter'. Reagan was willing to endure a deficit in order to rebuild the military to fight the cold war because he believed that one was infinitely more important than the other."

Well... I think the 'trickle down' nonsense fit in there somewhere too.

"I don't think that Schumer is saying we should "live within our means". He is saying that he is going to raise taxes in order to pay for nationalized healthcare and that the era of big government is not over."

Ok. I might have projected some of my own ideas on Schumer, which is obviously silly. I'm all for low taxes, but I'm also for investing in our citizenry in order to save money down the road. I think that certain gov't expenditures will produce a better return than cutting taxes, but that there is a limit to what can be accomplished this way.

At the same time, I think the ongoing Repub claim about 'tax and spend' dems is more than a little disingenuous, given the GOP habit of borrowing & spending.

Man, jason. I'm disappointed. Now you people now why I do waht I do. There is no rel conversation on this blog anyway. So why not post news articles that the gop is hiding from. What differance does it make if only gop'ers are parroting talking points all day. How do you grow doing that? You don't. That is the point. That is why I'm here. To help you think out of the box. To help you republicans grow. I saw what you need to hear, not waht you want to hear.

PEace. Have a good day everybody. I'll read the rush posts.

Herewith some of my problems with Clinton...

1) In my opinion, she believes in nothing except that she wants to be President. This is unprovable, so I won't try. But she has yet to show me anything that changes my opinion.

2) I, too, feel that she would not be considered a top candidate without Bill. I also have a problem with the Bush/Clinton dynasty issue. These again are my perception, which doesn't necessarily match that of others.

3) The Clintons seem to me to have the same issues regarding control and secrecy as the Bush administration. They use similar methods. I expect no change if a new administration uses the same methods, except for the labels. The secrecy is especially important to me, as I feel that democracy operates best by the light of day. Again, I'm dealing with my perceptions here, but I'll point to the GQ flap as an example.

There are more, but I'll stop here for now...

Cc posted the rush post. Finally. Go there so I can read your people's response. Let's talk about real topics of the day. Not huckabee, or comic books, although I'd like an answer. But since cc provided balance, after his arm was twisted. I'm done for the day. Don't be hypocrites. Don't let me win. Post your posts. How is the rush and movoen differant

JasonL,

It will be extemely difficult for Hillary Clinton to govern if she wins the "Blue States" plus Florida or Ohio. The democratic nominee has to be competitive in some of the "red states" to govern effectively. Because of the vitriol towards Hillary in the "red states" and "red districts" it will be extremely difficult for her be competitive, and presumably difficult for her to govern if she were to win the presidency.

The fact is there is a candidate who is qualified, accomplished, and not a Bush or Clinton. And he can be competitive in "red states." A candidate who has been speaking about the challenges confronting the U.S. in the coming decades.

I aplogize to the thread for trying to point out a Zouk hypocrisy, and in doing so provide a path for rufus to go so far afield on that it is mind boggling.

Again, my apologies.

come on jason. I want real political conversation, as you people do. Answer my question and I'm done for the day. I promise.

Can't beat somebody with nobody
HRC wins
Only GWB could create such a mess to make it possible

i see cap america standing their. Refusing to fight back agaisnt his countryman. one is a patriot, one THINKS he's a patriot. But would a patriot attack his own countryman? And is iron man (the corporation) holding him back, for the good of money (the economy)?

That's it if you answer. Just trying to understand, kind sir :)

JasonL,

That is my point. Who you are married to or who your father is should only be a marginal consideration in electing a president. Likewise when applying to college or for a job. It should be about who you are and what you have accomplished not what a family member has done. Bill Clinton is not a merit. A merit is something you earn.

Meritocracy has long been what this country is about and what has distinguished the U.S. from most western European democracies. Furthermore, meritocracy has provided opportunity to the less fortunate and spawned immigration and emigration.

The NYTimes, Economist, and Wall Street Journal all reported on the dangers of the demise of meritocracy last year. This is a point that has largely been overlooked. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and George W. Bush's life are evidence of this problem. And I vehemently disagree that families like the Kennedys, Fords, and I'll throw in the Bushes are good for politics.

bsimon,
The 'Reagan shebboleth' is not that 'deficits don't matter'. Reagan was willing to endure a deficit in order to rebuild the military to fight the cold war because he believed that one was infinitely more important than the other. There is a difference between deficits that occur for temporary necessities (like wars - and yes, i know that Iraq was not a necessity) and permanent entitlements like nationalized healthcare. Now do I think that we taxpayers should be paying for at least some of these wars now? Yeah, I do. I don't think that Schumer is saying we should "live within our means". He is saying that he is going to raise taxes in order to pay for nationalized healthcare and that the era of big government is not over.

"Sort of like turning militias into a modern army."

I hear you. Or mercanary armies into real armies? Sounds liek blackwater. Enlighten me jason. I have this piture on my computer right now. It holds political signifigance to me. I obviously have been wrong. What does it mean.

The second from the bottom.

Last marvel question if you answer. I need your comic gauidance as I don't read. Just trying to understand republicans better.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

"Back to the point: who's going to pay for all the spending from 2000 to 2008?"
Our descendent's most likely. There will come a time, even if we're more fiscally responsible now, when the interest on the principle is too much to handle. We spend an astounding amount of tax dollars every year paying off the interest now. The tax code needs to be made more progressive. We need to invest heavily in education. The budget needs to get balanced and stay balanced. Eventually, if we do these things we may be able to start reducing the principle.

"Grow up? I'm not the old man that still reads comic books :)"
-Rufus

Touche. Passes the time, though. It's actually sort of interesting. I stopped reaing comics when I was a kid and recently got back into because I thought Civil War was a fascinating concept. A lot of the Marvel titles have really grown up with me. Mature themes, complex political, social, and philosophical ideas.

"what about iron man and the industrial machine going after the mutants?"
Actually it was less about mutants who were decimated following the events of House of M and more about the rest of the super hero community. Iron Man and the government's position was that super heroes should be trained and licensed so as to protect civilians and property and increase accountability. Sort of like turning militias into a modern army. Interesting stuff.

We're totally off topic now, but do you see how we've actually had a conversation here? You didn't call anyone a fascist or a traitor and I payed attention to you and answered your questions. Don't you think this is better? No one want's you be be silent. We respect your 1st amendment rights, but if you toned down the rhetoric and wrote clearly and concisely about the points you're trying to make you'll make more of a difference.

just like bill O'rEIllt writes books for children. Marvel was an attempt to "Hook em while their young".

Propoganda for the kids. I know you know this Jason. Fascists. your time is up. You will be done for a generation .Your children and grandchildren will not be corporate slaves as you did. Why should we. The government is ours (the people's). Why should we be slaves to a party? Any party? They are OUR slaves. Time to make them remember that.

"JasonL,

Your comments are so troubling I don't know where to start. There is just a fundamental disconnect with your comments and reality.
"

To much comic books. WArped his mind. He thinks sean hannity and rush are superheros, incognito.

Keep you rhead in reality jason. Stay out of the comic world. It is not reality. Is was all a gop propoganda game starting in the 40's (ww2). It is not real. It is propoganda. I know you gop'ers love your marvel. But it is fake.

anon coward writes
"On domestic issues, too, Schumer argued that the "Reagan shibboleth" of smaller government and lower taxes has been rejected by a public looking for government to provide them a hand up

Hey Schumer whos going to pay the bill for this hand up?"

Mr 'Tax Me' aka Anonymous Coward, the question you fail to ask is "Who's going to pay for all the stuff we're buying on credit now?" What Mr Schumer is saying, I think, is that rather than borrowing money to live high on the hog, we should live within our means. The 'Reagan shebboleth' is that 'deficits don't matter'. They do matter. The reason Reagan got away with the 'deficits don't matter' fallacy is because inflation reduced the real cost of that borrowing, then the booming 90s generated growth in the economy and revenue. These days the Fed worries a lot about inflation - and tries to manage the money supply in order to keep inflation in check - which is one reason they waited to lower the overnight rate until the market was starting to panic.

Back to the point: who's going to pay for all the spending from 2000 to 2008?

Grow up? I'm not the old man that still reads comic books :)

what about iron man and the industrial machine going after the mutants? Should I post the stories of winter soldier, us agent, and captain america on this blog? Would that settle the arguement?

It is a comic book. I'll admit I haven't read a comic book in over 15 years. Grow up jason. Grow up :)

"That argument requires more than a 30 second timeframe to explain and thus makes it a losing argument in this day and age."

Sadly, I don't disagree.

Democrats show their true colors of higher taxes

On domestic issues, too, Schumer argued that the "Reagan shibboleth" of smaller government and lower taxes has been rejected by a public looking for government to provide them a hand up

Hey Schumer whos going to pay the bill for this hand up?

Your last post about meritocracy is what I was replying to. I'm saying that Clinton has merits. Bill is one of them.

As to the hypothetical, she probably wouldn't be a first tier candidate, but not for the reason you suggest. She got experience in politics, policy, public speaking, and other ares. That experience adds to her candidacy. Without it, she's not much different from Obama, who I like but I think is too inexperienced to be the President.

How would polls suddenly become irrelevant the day after she's nominated? The polls are based on how people would vote if she was nominated. Again, there haven't been major attacks on her character or policies yet but mud will fly on both sides.

As to abhorrent. Show me the states that are reasonably in play where Clinton loses because she's "abhorrent." quite the opposite, she leads in national polling and against every Republican running. She won't get votes in Red strongholds but no Democrat will.

bsimon,
He listed a other events like the Blackwater shootings that did similar things. I'm not arguing that Biden's plan, in a reverse psychological sort of way, is not beneficial. I'm saying that Biden will not be successful making that case to a large number of the American people. That argument requires more than a 30 second timeframe to explain and thus makes it a losing argument in this day and age.

JasonL,

Your comments are so troubling I don't know where to start. There is just a fundamental disconnect with your comments and reality.

Rufus, U.S. Agent was mostly around during the nineties I believe. As far as I know, he was only in the "Choosing Sides" portion of Civil War. You can learn more about U.S. Agent on wikipedia, I'm sure.

As to how Cap was killed:
"On his way to an arraignment at the Federal Courthouse in New York City, Captain America was shot in the right shoulder by a sniper's bullet. Several subsequent shots were fired point blank at Rogers by Sharon Carter, brainwashed by Dr. Faustus who was allied with the Red Skull. Sharon, unaware of her actions and concealed by the crowd during the shooting, escorted Rogers to the hospital while the Falcon and the Winter Soldier subdued the sniper, Crossbones (Brock Rumlow). Captain America was pronounced dead on arrival at Mercy Hospital. Sharon's memory was restored by a keyword spoken by the Red Skull's daughter, Sin (Sinthia Shmidt)."

Back to your behavior, what does Hannity and O'Reilly have to do with posting on the Fix. Sean Hannity isn't here. You're snot stopping him. You aren't convincing anyone to come around to your way of thinking, you're cluttering the comments section with stuff that we skip rather than read.

Grow up.

dON'T GET ME WRONG. I AGREE THAT THIS KIND OF POLITICAL DIALOGUE IS BAD FOR THIS COUNTRY.

But I'm just showing you people why. If you would whine and cry for me to be silenced, with my 5 readers, why would you not think fox and rush should be silenced with their million sof listeners? With there, running the country at all.

Hypocrites?

Practice what you preach

"Cheslea would be short on experience at that point (not that that seems to matter to many). But does Jeb Bush work?"

There're always the Cheney girls.

Dave! writes
"And in order to help achieve those goals, it is beneficial to do things that push Iraqis towards expressing Iraqi sovereignty - could anybody be doing that better than Bush (he asks cynically)?"

But isn't Ignatius's point that the Bush policy hasn't successfully moved the Sunnis & Shia towards the solidarity that sovereignty requires? But that the Biden plan did exactly that - it inspired two groups that have been fighting each other to join together and say "Hey, you can't tell us what to do!" Biden has kids, perhaps he learned reverse psychology at home?

JasonL,

See my last post re meritocracy. And I'll pose a question, its a hypothetical, I hope you don't mind answering. Would Hillary Clinton be in the "top tier" of candidates if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton and first lady?

Second, you are deluding yourself if you don't think there is a large population of the national electorate who would be abhorrent to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I would suggest that the polls you are consulting will be irrelevant in the event of a Clinton nomination.

Pol Sci 101,
"Chelsea will be 36 in 2016. If you can show me that she is planning on running then, I'll accept Reason #2." Cheslea would be short on experience at that point (not that that seems to matter to many). But does Jeb Bush work?

"Just to follow-up on JasonL's advice, rufus.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a group of sane reasonable regular posters finally fed-up enough with the shenanigans to petition Chris to put stricter requirements on who can post and how
"

So what. I'm fed up with rush fox hannity and o'reilly. You have power to stop me as I do them. And if you would silennce me, silence them also

:(

Who killed captain america then? I don't rad, I just read the stroy lines. Who is Us agent in the piture. Iron man is vote the registration, no? Does he represent "The Corporation". ISn't he part of the marvel illuminati?

Captain america would not be their leader going after mutants no. Trying to use waht I can. Cut me some slak. I'm making a point here. Let me use my allegories :). It's just a comic book writen by capitalists. Cut me some slack. I'm trying to speak on the level of you people. :)

P, I think it's difficult to logically assume that because she's a Clinton that matters more than her own qualifications. She's educated and experienced (I'll say it, you can form your own opinion).

Also, I'm not sure that we can really say that families holding important positions is really indicative of a shift to European dynamics. My parents are both smart, hard working and college educated. Likewise, I am smart(ish) and college educated. My father works for the federal government and I work in state government. Have we set up a civil service dynasty here? Kennedy's and Fords are important in politics. Nobody's freaking out about that.

What we're really seeing is that money begets education and influence. Education, influence, and money beget political success.

bsimon,
"In other words, Bush & Ignatius share the same goals, but have differing ideas in how to achieve them." And in order to help achieve those goals, it is beneficial to do things that push Iraqis towards expressing Iraqi sovereignty - could anybody be doing that better than Bush (he asks cynically)?

Just to follow-up on JasonL's advice, rufus.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a group of sane reasonable regular posters finally fed-up enough with the shenanigans to petition Chris to put stricter requirements on who can post and how.

The handwriting is on the wall. You would do well to read it!

If you continue to abuse the privilege of uncensored posting, all of us could lose it!

"Commendable effort to reason with MikeB, Colin.

But years ago MikeB saw "the sign post up ahead" and followed it.

He's a perfect fit here.
"

Their convo is goin gjust fine without peanut gallery comments. Post your posts. Read others. Peanut gallery snipes help no one unless you are talking abou tthe facts mentioned

P - Good point on the need for merit. Family should be no factor at all.

Gosh, I wish you hadn't mentioned the NYT postulation. Eeewww!

P, #2 is completely groundless. It's a logical fallacy to believe that any sort or "precedent" would be set by that.

#4 is also questionable. Her negatives have been pretty low. Now, the attack ads haven't started flying yet, but that will send negatives up on both candidates.

bsimon, is there any VP that you could add to a Clinton ticket to make voting D more palatable? Regardless of what we say here, is seems like she'll be the candidate. It's still hard to really say, but I think a betting man would put their money there right now.

Rufus, I'm going to establish my dork credentials here. Your post about the "Civil War" story arc in Marvel comics was totally off base.

The government wanted super heroes to register because a group of young, untrained heroes tried to take down a group of villains that was too much for them and they allowed one, Nitro, to blow up in front of a school causing the deaths of 100's of children and adults.

Captain America did fight back against this initiative. Winter Soldier (not the old Winter Soldier who was a villain but a new one that's actually Bucky) was working for Nick Fury. Winter Soldier didn't kill Cap.

While I'm talking to you, Rufus, lets go back to the point Blarg tried to get through to you. Your behavior on this blog ruins the experience for others. You're not the only one, but you're one of the loudest. Stop calling people names. Stop pasting large amounts of stuff into the comments. Act like an adult.

Dave! writes
"The other part I found interesting is that [Ignatius] refered to the "Bush administration's failing policy". I might be missing something but isn't Bush's policy one of strong central government and Iraqi sovereignty? The kind of direction that he talks about for Iraq?"

I think Mr Ignatius's point is that the Bush policy is failing to achieve the strong central gov't and Iraqi sovereignty that is necessary before we can leave. In other words, Bush & Ignatius share the same goals, but have differing ideas in how to achieve them.

fascists fascists everywhere

Commendable effort to reason with MikeB, Colin.

But years ago MikeB saw "the sign post up ahead" and followed it.

He's a perfect fit here.

Poly Sci 101,

Your point about Bush 41 and 43 are well taken, however my point is only tangentially related to "Political Dynasty." The broader point is that of meritocracy or lack there of. Winning election to the highest and most prestigious office in the country should be about your accomplishments, experience, qualifications, and political adeptness. Being apart of a political family should only factor in marginally. The fact of the matter is the concept of the "American Dream" is under attack. I fear that this country will start to operate similar to the way western European countries operate.

Btw, I believe the NYTimes recently postulated the possibility of Chelsea Clinton entering political life in the not so distant future.

MikeB -- The "books" on Hillary Clinton that I suspect you're referring to utilized allegations leaked by whitewater investegators, despite the fact that the final report found no wrongdoing. Here's a brief CNN report on the so-called "filegate" controversy:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/28/clinton.filegate/

You'll note that a separate congressional investigation, by the republican congress in 1996, also found no wrongdoing.

Similarly, although the prosecutor remained suspicious regarding Hillary's purported activities during "travelgate," he also found there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge her with anything:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/802335.stm

In short, despite the fact that ALL of the scandals you noted were investigated by a Republican appointed special prosecutor, who spent millions and millions of dollars doing nothing but hunt the Clintons, Hillary was never so much as charged with a single crime.

Jeez Mike, I don't even like Hillary but you're making me defend her. Will you just stick to the facts instead of repeating half-truths and rumors?

"Ignasius also said we should not try to force that plan on Iraq. "

Good point Dave! Countries are like people, hey will naturally resist things which are forced upon them.

Unfortunately, that also goes for Democracy. If a country is inclined towards what Democracy requires or ready for it, forcing it on them won't work.

Once again, Loudmouth proves he/she/it is a total dweeb!

MikeB: "Almost NONE of the scandles around this pair have ever been resolved."

You mean with guilty pleas? Perhaps that's because most of the "scandles" were all smoke, and no fire.

P - Reason #2 is groundless, although a number of people have bought into.

Presidential elections in this country where a "2nd term" is not a factor, are unique unto themselves (mutually exclusive).

Plus, Bush 43 could not have been more different from Bush 41.

The Clintons are more likely to be like each other. If you don't like that, that's a valid reason. Dynasty is not.

Chelsea will be 36 in 2016. If you can show me that she is planning on running then, I'll accept Reason #2.

Colin - Go do a bit of reading. Not right wing web sites, but books on the CLinton's and the Clinton Presidency. Almost NONE of the scandles around this pair have ever been resolved. You don't have to be a Republican to have Hillary Clinton frighten the bejesus out of you. She is ruthless, corrupt, the worst sort of opportunist, and very bright...a dangerous combination.

MikeB -- I think you've been reading right wing websites. There is PLENTY to criticize about the Clintons, but the so-called "unresolved scandals" you mentioned were ALL investigated during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, the majority of them were looked into by Ken Starr as part of his multimillion dollar witch hunt that found...wait for it...no wrong doing associated with any of the things you mentioned. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

Again, i think you're better than this MikeB. You're a smart guy who has legitimate policy beefs with Hillary. Why not focus on those without hurling baseless conspiracy theories that are nothign but right wing talking points?

bsimon,
I had not read Ignatius but after doing so he makes a good point. That said, a sound bite election is not going to lend itself to the subtleties of explaining that rejection of your plan is a good thing. Ignasius also said we should not try to force that plan on Iraq. The other part I found interesting is that he refered to the "Bush administration's failing policy". I might be missing something but isn't Bush's policy one of strong central government and Iraqi sovereignty? The kind of direction that he talks about for Iraq?

just saw and opportunity to present an allegory. I don not know all abou teverything, nor do I pretend to . So sorry to have offened you.

You are a fascist zouk

Keep dreaming Sen. Schumer!

Hillary Clinton is not only a liability for the Democratic party - she is a liability for the whole country.

For the record, I am a liberal democrat who, like many of my stripe, cannot stand Hillary because she hasn't an ounce on integrity.

The idea that only GOPers hate Hillary is a myth.

I am an independent and have voted Democrat in the last two presidential elections. I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee and here are my reasons:

1) She is not the most qualified or the best candidate.

Simply, Hillary Clinton has failed on every occasion to demonstrate the foresight and forward thinking required of a president at this point in American history. She has yet to reveal a plan for political reconciliation in Iraq or a plan to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In fact, she never talks about these issues and avoids answering them when questioned. Further, she has yet to speak about the future of America's standing in the world in correlation to the rise of China, India, and Russia.

2) Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton

If Hillary Clinton is elected the last four presidents will have come from only 2 families. Two family rule would establish a dangerous precedent that potentially threatens the nature of American democracy.

3) She lacks experience.

Serving as first lady and 1 1/4 terms as a Senator do not make Hillary the most experienced candidate. Rather, I don't see how her previous political positions provide her with enough experience to run the country.

4) She is the most divisive Democrat.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, the country is greatly divided i.e. "red state" "blue state." Hillary Clinton would exasperate the country's division.

5) I have already concluded who is the best and most qualified candidate and will not vote for anyone else. I will write his name in if in fact he does not win the nomination.

Finally, I know a number of independents and Democrats who feel similarly and refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Leave it to Zouk to use a term which so contrasts with his own lack of service to this country; "Winter Soldier".

[Rufus, with your Bettle Bailey comic book mentality, its no wonder you took it off in a totally different direction.]

The term is derived from Tom Paine's The Crisis (Dec. 1776) "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Winter Soldier was used by the V V A W (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) to describe those who stand up for their country in troubled times, in contrast to the Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots - Chickenhawks and for the purpose of this blog, Zouk.

"My guess is that a sizable number would look back fondly on Carter, Ford and LBJ too."

I'm looking back fondly on GHWB, but I didn't much care for him at the time.

Judge C. Crater - That poll is a Democratic bucket of spit. Bill CLinton was a thief, a liar, and a very lazy President who lucked into some good economic times thanks to Robert Rubin. If not for that accident, he would have been impeached and removed from office. For the past two years, the DNC has been running on a rewritten history of the Clinton years. In a campaign, it wont take long for pundits to start point out the legacy of criminal conduct, scandles, attack politics, James Carville, etc. More than a few scandles surrounding Ms. Clinton have never been resolved - the Travel Office rrecords, the msiing FBI records that appeared a year later with her finger prints all over them, the cattle futures and similar "investment" deals, the ruthless personal attacks on opponents, her involvement with the Annita Hill smear campaign, and plenty more. You're being delussional and dangerously silly if you think Hillary CLinton is anything other than a craven, greedy opportunist that put Hillary first. A presidency under her would be a very dangerous thing and a complete and total disaster. It might just be a fitting end to this country, however. After the greed, dishonesty and incompitence of the Bush years, if people are so stupid as to elect someone even worse, this country couldn't survive even four years of Hillary. Ms. Clinton, "Chuckles" Schumer, and Chapaquidic "Kennedy" are just about the only people I can think of that make even George Bush look good.

Progressive -- You keep saying Obama is unelectable, despite the fact that all the general election polling shows that he -- along with Clinton and Edwards -- would win every general election matchup. Do you have any response to that?

Also, a few days ago you argued that others were repeating "GOP attacks on Hillary." Yet two out of your three "reasons" that Obama can't get elected are the epitome of Nixon's southern strategy: playing up his race and his ethnic sounding name. Pretty ugly stuff, IMO.

Seriously buddy, why can't you be content to simply explain why you like Hillary BETTER. There's really no reason to irrationally try to argue she's the only Democrat that can win when empirical data shows the exact opposite. Unless, of course, you yourself actually believe that a person's race and name ought to disqualify them from being president.

Judge C. Crater,
One wonders what the approval rating on Truman would be today? Things always look better after time than at the moment. My guess is that a sizable number would look back fondly on Carter, Ford and LBJ too. But how nostalgia for WJC translates to money for HRC is something than needs more of an explanation, at least for me.

Oops, make that '<'

Rufus: (100-66.7)>45. What they say isn't worth spit. And I'm an Obama fan.

Dave! writes
"That plan got rejected the other day by both the Sunnis and Shiites. Those two groups really don't agree on much, but apparently they do on his plan. I'm not being critical of his plan (it's the best one of the Dem candidates IMO) but how is it going to play when one could easily say he is trying to force an American solution down the throats of Iraqis who, by an apparent majority, don't want it?"

Did you read Ignatius today? He calls that a positive development - that Biden's (nonbinding) plan is accidentally forcing a de-facto sovereignty on the Iraqis. Clearly, this is not the goal of the Biden plan. But its one of those unintended consequences, thankfully positive, thus far.

Regarding Biden as a Pres candidate, whatever his faults, I still find him a superior alternative to Sen Clinton.

bsimon,
"I think Biden would also be a fine nominee."
First let me say that I like Biden in general. But his claim to fame for this election is his plan for Iraq. That plan got rejected the other day by both the Sunnis and Shiites. Those two groups really don't agree on much, but apparently they do on his plan. I'm not being critical of his plan (it's the best one of the Dem candidates IMO) but how is it going to play when one could easily say he is trying to force an American solution down the throats of Iraqis who, by an apparent majority, don't want it?

"What makes you so sure she can't reach across the aisle to win Republican support? She has proven her ability to do that as a Senator."

"However, Bill and Hillary Clinton are SO VERY different from George W. Bush. They are smarter and they want to make government WORK for average people instead of outsourcing all functions to greedy and unaccountable corporate executives."

Progressive, Hillary has done almost nothing in the Senate except pretend to play nice with others. name anything she has actually accomplished. And the Clinton's won't know an average person if they tripped over one. They are very tied to big money and the corporate world. Hopefully the folk image Hillary tries to project won't fly.

"Judge Denies Craig Motion to Revoke Plea

Oct 4 02:11 PM US/Eastern
By PATRICK CONDON
Associated Press Writer

View larger image

Hot New Photo Op: Sen. Craig's Airport Bathroom Stall

Denied: Judge Refuses To Revoke Larry Craig's Guilty Plea

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A Minnesota judge on Thursday rejected Sen. Larry Craig's bid to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting, a major setback in Craig's effort to clear his name and hang onto his Senate seat.
"Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

Craig can appeal Porter's ruling, but it wasn't immediately clear if he would.

"

r

They say her negative rathings are somewhere like 45% judge. She is the only one the r's can beat. No other democrat other than pelosi or ted kenneddy for pete's sake, could the r's beat. Hillary they can beat. That is why the r's are pushing her

The r's are pushing her all day everyday. She is the gop candidate. If she wins the d nom. It is r vs r. That is the only way the r's can win. run agasint themselves.

"CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD "

From drudge. Top stroy. Wake-up moderates. The republicans are choosing the d candidate for us.

"The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a nostalgic two-thirds of Americans look back with approval on Bill Clinton's work as president -- double the 33 percent who approve of President Bush."


After I left my last job, they asked if my wife was available.

bsimon: fair enough. I don't participate in party activities, so I will withhold judgement on whether we can do better than Clinton until we know who her opponent is (assuming she is the nominee).

I'll leave it to the Dem party faithful to decide if she will be their standard-bearer.

As if you needed additional evidence that the opinions expressed on this blog aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

"The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a nostalgic two-thirds of Americans look back with approval on Bill Clinton's work as president -- double the 33 percent who approve of President Bush. That nostalgia may help to explain her surge in the polls (she's 33 percentage points ahead of her nearest rival, Barack Obama) and in fundraising ($3 million ahead of Obama in the latest quarter)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302195.html?hpid=topnews

Sounds like the D base will REALLY be depressed if HRC is at the top of the ticket. In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, "What a bunch of maroons!"

Mjames says
"Give me a reason to move back to Obama."

I'm not as much pro-Obama as anti-Hillary. I think Biden would also be a fine nominee. I think what the Dems need to do is figure out what they stand for, then find the appropriate candidate. Given that process, I think they would choose someone other than Sen Clinton.

Loudon asks
""Another Clinton presidency will not only be bad for the country..."

bsimon, are you saying the first Clinton presidency was bad for the country?"

No, Loudon, I said, which you quoted, that ANOTHER Clinton presidency would be bad. It is not a judgement of Bill's administration, it is a prediction of what Hillary's would entail. I don't think she's qualified. I think she's too divisive. I think her claim that she 'knows how to fight them' is indicative of her willingness to focus on partisanship rather than good solutions.

Furthermore, I don't trust her. I think many of her votes in the Senate have been calculated not to produce the best outcome for the country, but to establish 'tough on terrorism' credentials for this election. I think her vote for the war was a calcualted move to appear hawkish, much like her recent vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution on Iran.

I think most of her supporters haven't fully thought through what she stands for & whether her positions are really the best ones for the country. In my opinion, they aren't. We can do better.

"So, in a way, the problems you are hearing about is a direct result of the R's holding their party responsible."

JD, at the very least they are "holding their party responsible" in an extremely belated way with a lot of help from folks located to the left and the right of the R party.

Regressive - You are living in a fantasy world. Hillary Clinton is the single most devisive candidate we have had since Lincoln and would likely tear this country apart, just as Lincoln did. Unlike Lincoln, however, she isn't just a fanatic, she's a crook and in bed with the wealthy, corporations, and even foeign governments. You and similar feminist nutcases may like her, but let me assure you that something very close to half of the country flat out detests her and wouldn't vote for her no matter who her opponent is.

Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a steady decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Unable to force Bush to wind down the Iraq war, just a quarter of Democrats gave a thumbs-up to Congress' work, compared to a fifth of Republicans and independents.

Congress' lowest approval reading in the poll had been 24 percent, recorded most recently in July.

AP-Ipsos polling began in December 2003.

President Truman's approval ratings of 23 percent in both 1951 and 1952 were the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Poll. Congress' Gallup Poll low was 18 percent in 1992. (the clinton years)

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted from Oct. 1-3 and involved telephone interviews with 1,005 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

you want low poll numbers - simple, elect the Dems.

If we're going to talk about winter soldier. I've been read ing these marvel comics on-line to past time at work.

Captian america. The corporation wanted all "mutants" to be labeled and id'ed. Captain america was approached by the corporation to lead the attack agaisnt his own people. He refused. Someone took his place. He looked like captain america and thought he was a patriot. The corporation lead by iron man (robots' military complex) procedds to wage war agaisnt his own people. The real captain america, rather than fighting his people turns himself in. He goes to court for crimes agaisnt his country, although fascism is taking over. He is shot by the winter soldier coming out of the courrt house. Is that the soldiers rush is talkign about, or the opposite. Thanks for the opportunity to show you this allegory. The source means nothing. The word is what matters.

But check out the picture. It holds signifigance. You people are the traitors to the nation. Anyone that would choose party over country is a traitor. All I can do is fight you here. I would never do what you people would do. That is how you (and your party ) will lose.

The reason chrsitianity and REal chrsitians are invincable is because we love our enemies. you cannot win zouk. You have already lost.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

Second from the bottom. REspond if you got the balls.

Blackwater Copter Rescues Polish Ambassador A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle today before being pulled to safety and airlifted by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA

Not phony Dem soldiers.

The "Reagan shibboleth"? Didn't Bill Clinton state that "the era of big government was over"? And quite honestly, if Schumer is going to use words like shibboleth in his argument for nationalized healthcare and the like, he should not get the communications director position should HRC become president. Besides, the shibboleth apparently ended in 2000.

The thing that really gets me is his statement "Either enough Republican Senators will break with the president....or there will be an election in 2008 and the American people will make sure there is a change in Iraq." How about a third choice of the people of Iraq making a change. Unlikely as it currently looks, the big old grin on Sen Schumer's face will disappear if there is progress in Iraq. But that possibility appears to not enter into the Senator's thinking. Being gleeful about your prospects based on the assumption that the US will continue to be mired in Iraq with no traction is quite a position to be in. Is the senator wishing daily for more bad news?

Korean Leaders Issue Peace Call The leaders of North and South Korea have signed a joint declaration calling for a permanent peace deal on the Korean Peninsula

talk, talk, talk = lib failure
tough, tough, tough = Repub success

Iraq Reconstruction Efforts Make Meaningful Progress More than 4,100 Iraqi reconstruction projects from 4,700 planned projects were completed at the end of fiscal 2007, and another 582 projects are ongoing

more effective than the Dem congress.

second from the bottom. That is you zouk. you hate your country. You hate REAL patriots. you hate everything this coutnry stands for. Sell-outs. hypocrites. You can never win zouk. Never.'

But I don't hate you. Like the picture I pity you. I love my country to much to hate my own countrymen. MAybe you gop'ers could learn from that. Rather than waging war on your own country for decades on end. I will never hurt you people like you would do to us. Look at the picture and respond. if you have the courage.

Ann C., then I take it that you do consider AWOL Air National Guard pilots as real soldiers. Correct?"

Waht about rush. Didn't he get of out the draft because he had a pimple on his bottom? Real patriots. AWOL. just like their mental. AWOL

It's not safe libign your lives for me facsits. I know you are used to living lives through external avatars. But I don't want you to worship me. I'm trying to break your chains so you don't need an avatar. I don't want to run your life zouk. Please stop obsessing. :)

It's not healthy

"Winter Soldier" YEah right. That would make you peopel captain america. Check out this photo zouk. Deep mental value. Jsut know you are the sell-out fascits. When you see it look at this. You got the corporate holding back the "fake" aptriot hating his countryman. THE REAL PATRIOT.

Check it out if you dare. America 2007. The corporation aligning with fascists, agasint america

second from the bottom. That is you zouk. you hate your country. You hate REAL patriots. you hate everything this coutnry stands for. Sell-outs. hypocrites. You can never win zouk. Never.

http://www.marvel.com/universe/U.S.Agent

bsimon: "Another Clinton presidency will not only be bad for the country..."

bsimon, are you saying the first Clinton presidency was bad for the country? Other than the dittohead brigade, most people believe that overall the first Clinton presidency was good for the country.

You seem to have some unusual insight into how this Clinton might perform as president. Perhaps you have some equally prescient insights into how the other leading candidates might perform? Assume a Democratic controlled Congress.

"but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats."

Ann C., then I take it that you do consider AWOL Air National Guard pilots as real soldiers. Correct?

BSimon:

I was originally an Obama supporter and a Hillary skeptic, but am changing my position. In my opinion, Obama has been incredibly underwhelming. He cannot produce clear statements in debates, and he policy ideas are either vague, weak (e.g., his health care proposal), or over the top (e.g., bombing Pakistan). He seems to be campaigning on image rather than substance, and I fear that his image (i.e., being post-partisan) is not going to help him once the Republican attack machine starts. Finally, he does not perform particularly well in the head-to-head polls against the strongest Republicans, especially Guiliani.

Give me a reason to move back to Obama.

Blarg, you're having a battle of the wits with an unarmed man. Leave it be.

JKrish, although I'm not Repub, I would suggest that the GOP is already suffering from hypocracy, hence why their numbers are down and '08 prospects grim. They're supposed to be the party that