If you work in the United States and have tried to get promoted, you know there reall is a "glass ceiling" and a "boys club". If you mention it and try to play by the rules you are accused of playing the gender card. Get real folks especially you Gatorman2 just had to use the vagina reference. Women get a grip and stop listening to the men. In your heart you know you want a woman president. I do. Women make great leaders and so will Ms. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton is the worst choice for the presidency, mainly because the problem how to void WWIII is becoming the most urgent problem currently, and she is the well known warmonger. The fact that she is woman is not changing this current exposure. There were, are, and would be always warmongering females, like she is, and warmongering males. The fact that her husband-our former president had less aggressive nature, if any, is irrelevant now, as she would be Commander in Chief, not he. People here are writing in their comments that she is seldom repeating her mistakes, referring to her health plan, which she currently "borrowed" or "copied" from Edwards health plan. So, what? It is another part of her nature-she is a pretty skillful con artist (it means - a thief of ideas and concepts among other qualities). Is it what the country needs now-the warmonger and the skillful con artist simultaneously? I seriously doubt it. Anyhow, each nation deserves its leader. The re-election of Bush, to which Mrs. Clinton contributed a lot, illustrated this statement very well.

I'm tired of Billary. I've seen this movie before. Haven't you ever had a boss or co-worker like her who uses everything from their well-honed chameleon-speak, to their "poor me I'm a woman" (while I claw your eyes out?)

Even in her latest outreach to black women at churches - please, spare us, Billary. I'd rather have an honest person respectfully disagree with my beliefs than the hand-shaker that tells me what they think I want to hear, then wants to be in the group photo.

I'd never choose a friend like her...I need girlfriends who say what they mean and mean what they say.

I'm tired of Billary. I've seen this movie before. Haven't you ever had a boss or co-worker like her who uses everything from their well-honed chameleon-speak, to their "poor me I'm a woman" (while I claw your eyes out?)

Even in her latest outreach to black women at churches - please, spare us, Billary. I'd rather have an honest person respectfully disagree with my beliefs than the hand-shaker that tells me what they think I want to hear, then wants to be in the group photo.

I'd never choose a friend like her...I need girlfriends who say what they mean and mean what they say.

LV and dave, thanks for your replies with cites.

Perhaps the first sign of Hillary's inevitable descent is the emphasis on balkanizing the constituency. That's going to be the nail in her coffin. When you have to resort to your own kind, as it were, then you're alienating a large percentage of those outside the circle as well as those brighter individuals who don't want to be treated in a such a narrow fashion despite being in that circle.

Yes, women have been unfairly excluded from the top post. But should that be the principal reason for voting for this woman? If so, you're desperate to make up for lost time. And for your sake you better hope she doesn't get elected because her Neocon streak is going to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It'll be a long time before another woman gets a decent shot after her 1-term presidency.

The piling on schtick, by the way, is utter nonsense, and will appear to be sour grapes as time goes on. As usual she dominated the air space. If she hadn't made the grave mistake of voting for calling the Iranian guards terrorists - a ticket for W and the Neocons to extend their immoral war into Iran - then she wouldn't have been under the spotlight so much. Instead, she could've exploited the opportunity to dispense more of her slick rhetoric and snake oil. Unfortunately for her she received the consequences she deserved.

The Right keeps saying she's moving left, but the truth is she never totally gave up her Republican allegiances. After all, it was Newt Gingrich's Contract with America that served as the foundation of Bill's Administration. And don't forget Dick Morris serving as Focus-Group Guru. Hillary may act in ways to accrue votes by shifting left and right but her heart's more aligned with Republicanism than any of the other candidates by far. You have to be blind to not see that.

Finally, the country got to see her insubstantial character the other night. And now it's only a matter of time before they tire of the amorphous answers she customarily gives to specific questions. For example, if she truly intends on pulling the troops out of Iraq then tell us, within a reasonable time frame, when that will happen. Currently, she says, "I don't want to get into hypotheticals."

Well there's a sizable group of Americans who don't want to see her hypotehtically occupying the White House again because she's not a true leader. A true leader reveals specific goals without denigrating that process by calling it hypothetical. She'd rather get the focus group results to see how to act, just like her husband did. Read Joe Klein's book if you doubt it.

Mark_in_austin,
Here is the PWC resolution that passed last July. http://helpsavemanassas.org/docs/june26resolution.pdf

Well, Loudmouth, go read a few of those we sites. You Clinton Clowns sem think if ou believe in something enough it will be true. That, in my book, makes you no diferent than the Fundimentalist or the Taliban or the Branch Davidians. But, what makes you dangerous is your viceral hatred of men and all things male. I know, a lot of the female supportes of this whack job sympathize with Ms. Clinton and her rake of a husband. A lot of them have posted as such and whine abou some man that did as mch to them. The male supporters are just pitiful emasculated, self loathing twits. All of them, inclding Ms. Clinton, are badly in need of psychiatric help. If you warped sick people actually succeed in lecting this twisted sicko, then god help this country. Men will pay for all of the perceived sins of the fat soap opera watching crowd everywhere.

Men, ever worked in an office where the majority of your co-workers are women, the bosss are women? Well, magnify that a hundred fold and you might get an idea of what is in store for you. It appears that we have a full scale war being jammed down our throats by the feminists and these "wronged" twisted females.

JD, do you have a cite to the proposition that passed?

I told this tale the day it happened last week. A conscientious client of mine has me ck all SS #s of his new hires. One came up "failed" last week.

SS advises double checking the #, having the employee go to the local SS office, "checking" with the employee after a month or so; and

NOT FIRING THE EMPLOYEE BASED ON THE "BAD" #!

We must get immunity from civil rights suits for employers who fire based on false SS #s.
------------------------------------
HRC should have been able to defend the NYDL flap by saying the method was approved by USDHLS. She had not done her homework and tripped. In and of itself it was not a huge deal. But it was the first time Ds ever even spoke about undocs/IAs, even for a minute. That Party needs to get in the picture on this.

mbrooks: Right, ace, I'm sure "those clowns at the Border Patrol" are throwing out the 38 million number when their bosses at the White House say it's 12 million. Sure they are.

Well, if you "read where it was reported" -- and let's make it clear, all of those news reports trace back to the SAME SINGLE REPORT from the obscure group in California -- then it must be true.

By the way, ace, my questioning the deep-seated issues at the root of your Clinton hatred really doesn't make me a "Clinton type." But you're known for making pretty large logical leaps. Or illogical as the case may be.

LoudounVote - yep! Those clown at the Border Patrol are inventing numbers again! Same for the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Seattle P.I., bizjournal, etc. And, as I stated originally and you blew off, "I read where this was reported". DOn't you get a little bit tired acting like a blithering idiot? And regularly being exposes as an ignorant clodhopper? I know, you Clinton types are bigots and drooling fools. One of you was just reported as threatening the life of the forum moderator for this weeks debate.

mibrooks: you haven't proven anyone wrong, you blithering idiot. Those "100 hits" all refer to one report by some whackjob rightwingnut group in California.

No wonder you lost your job to some uneducated illegal, you're a fool.

If the elections were held today and the nominees are Hillary Clinton (D) and Rudy Giuliani (R), who would you vote for?
-------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=859

.

Of course, lylepink and loudounvoter, nw that you've been shown to be complete fools, instead of shutting up and admitting you were wrong, you will blather on and on, ignore anything I or anyone else could possily say that you might learn from, and roll around in your ignorande and bigotry. What a delussional collection of dangerous whack jobs, so typical of the Clinton supporters. It really is all about emotion and hysteria, isn't it? I wish you would go back to watching soap operas.

It's starting to feel like tag team wresling, arguing with you ignorant twits. DOL figures show that fewer than 500,000 illegals are engaged in agricultural work. The estimates for the construction and related trades runs upwards of 4 million. There are also millions in meat cutting, manufacturing, and other jobs. As for the latest estimate of 38 million: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/study_says_illegal_alien_popul.php.

And, you slobbering nitwits would spend two minutes ceasing your pathetic attacks, you could have done a simply Yahoo search, typing in "illegal 38 million" and you would have come up with over 100 hits, all of them citations for the most recent number; cites from everyone from the border patrol to customs to cnn and other media outlets.

Hey 'Voter, I live in PWC and I'm fully behind those proposals. And for those who bother to examine the prop, it's not as draconian as the critics (like WaPo) like to paint it.

It's a very measured, reasonable response to the illegals' snubbing of US border policy.

If anyone wants to debate it on the merits (not emotions drindl, save your breath) I'm game.

LV: Going from 12M to 38M in a couple of hours is typical, mind you these are supposed to be workers, not the whole picture. Good for a laugh.

lylepink: but surely you believe mibrooks's estimate of 38 million illegals now?

And have you noticed how his rants have moved from outsourcing to illegal immigrants?

mibrooks27: Again you are posting inaccurate information about the illegal/undocumented workers. Most of these workers are found in about 6 to 10 places. Farm work for the large Corp.s, not the family farm. Hotels, Motels, Restaurants, Construction, Nursing homes and Yard/Landscaping are the most I can think of at this moment. The employers are to blame for this simply because a whole bunch of these folks are paid under the table, saving the employer vast sums of money they otherwise would have to pay in FICA and other taxes. Another thing worth mentioning is the guest worker program where they overstay and cannot be found. American workers are not able to fill the high tech jobs, and that is because of the schooling/training that is so expensive and lacking here in america. Paying a decent wage in the unskilled market would greatly reduce this problem as well.

Mark: here's an example of the debate. Prince William County is at the forefront of the "crackdown" on illegals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/01/ST2007110101357.html?hpid=topnews

LV, for a while we had a USAFA grad, Mike in NoCal, on the blog, who strongly supported Kennedy-McCain and would not budge from demanding citizenship at the end of the regularization process. I engaged with him often at the time but I did not understand his rationale to be stronger than "we should not exploit undocs."

This is not an all or nothing argument. It has so many facets that there should be competing positions within the parties.

There should be cross party alliances, too. KBH has a modest proposal that some Ds might support. McCain is not playing the xenophobe game either. There should be some non-xenophobic, modest or even grand proposals from Ds, too.

If there is a conversation, we feel listened too.
If only one party talks about it, we feel ignored.

Just how bad are the VA proposals?

mibrooks: What are you talking about? I hope you have a spit guard on your keyboard and someone has revoked your coffee privileges.

You're starting to scare me.

Loudmouth, you keep changing the subject. Are the only issues you care aout entirely perpheral? THE ECONOMY IS IN RUINS! It is in ruins largely due to those illegal immigrants. They take jobs from Amercian workers. They drive down wages and benefits when compteting for jobs with Amercian workers. I know, you "feeeeel" badly for them. Well, "feeeel" badly for your fellow countrymen and women who are lossing their homes, having marriages destroyed, loosing their medical coverage, watching their lives and their family's lives go down the drain. The last estimate I read was that the 12 million illegal has now ballooned to 38 million. We couldn't afford the original 12 million so you need to figure out how on earth we can afford three times that many!

mark: Immigration is just the latest issue to be demagogued by one party or the other. You would not believe -- I mean, of course you would believe -- the stuff being thrown out by candidates in Virginia's upcoming elections for local offices and state senators and delegates. It's bordering on xenophobia.

Pay close attention to these races.

lylepink - "...mibrooks27 does not know the difference between GM and Chrysler concerning layoffs..." And that somehow negates the point I was making? Not quite, the point is that tens of thousands of people are loosing their jobs, the entire economy is going into the tank, the dollar is at record lows and still is falling, inflation is certain to to take off at record rates and simply devistate families, and Hillary Clinton hasn't got the slightest idea of how to deal with it.

proud, nobody quite believed me, an independent, when I said yesterday that "border security/IAs" were right up there with energy independence and foreign policy
for independents and when I said the Rs debating it while the Ds were silent helped the Rs. Now that you found a poll of "my people" maybe the Ds can take up the discussion, too.

Colin, I posted McCain's letter to Mukasey on the McCain thread - he was joined by Graham and Warner, so my inference that Graham's views were similar to McC's was correct.

Some surprising numbers from a poll conducted by Democracy Corps and Democratic pollsters/strategists Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan, and James Carville:

They asked independents their top two reasons why America is on the wrong track from a list of seven.

"Bogged down and spending billions in Iraq" came in next to last at 23 percent;

"Government failed on Katrina" came in last at 13 percent.

The tops for independents? "Borders left unprotected," way ahead at 40 percent.

"Doing nothing about dependence on oil/global warming" came in second at 31 percent,

"losing jobs to China and India" at 27 percent, "government is running up record budget deficits" at 26 percent,

"leaders have done nothing on health care" came in at 24 percent.

Independents Are More Upset About the Border Than Democrats Are About Iraq

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTllNWFhMDI0MGNmODM0N2I3ZWQ0Nzg3MjAzOGZjMmM=

Considering whose votes will most likely decide the next election, the immigration issue is THE preeminent R opportunity.

LV: mibrooks27 does not know the difference between GM and Chrysler concerning layoffs. As usual his posts are amazing as to the extent of their being totally inaccurate.

LoudounVoter - Substance! Where is the substance, the justification for your remarks? Vitrol, personal attacks,name calling, DO NOT amount to a refutation of anything I said.

As for women looking to Ms. Clinton for revenge or otherwise engaged in male hating, lets try a few of the remarks "gang bang", "Those male candidates are poster boys for "doesn't get it" and remind me of my ex-husband carrying on with gotcha glee about the Visa bill", "[for the 'attacks']...she and women in general have a legitimate complaint..", "When men stay home to take care of their children, it's called babysitting. When I go on a business trip, I have to make sure that my husband makes sure to get my son's lunch money paid... that's part of the reason women like Hillary. She understands things that only other women can understand", etc. And, that's just a small sampling from this one forum. This silly sort of nonsense is all over the web and today Ms. Clintonis back at Rqadcliff making snide remarks about men, again! Is that what this election has boiled down to? Have we been reduced to some sort of battle between the sexes, a slugfest in the mud, where women exercise their "right" to belittle men, to denigrate fathers and husbands and former partners, but god help us all if a man returns the favor. There are some serious issues at stake here. One of them is people's ability to feed themselves and their children. Our economy is in genuine trouble and I keep trying to throw cold water on the Clinton bandwagon by pointing out that she is not capable of dealing with it, is inexpert at best - part of the problem at worst. That is not "bashing" Clinton and it doesn't involve denigrating women. It is recognizing that we have a serious economic problem and emotional outburst aren't going to solve it.

"LoudounV"--I am not going to stick up for "mibrooks", but if you go over to several of the other blogs on the WaPo over the last 12 hours, he IS very right to say that there are at least several women voters who say they are now voting for Hillary simply because they perceive that she was ganged up on by the men or because she is a woman [regardless of the lack of other credentials], etc. I agree with his implication that such a switch is irrational.

As for any misogynist tendencies you find in him, well, I don't see them and I certainly would oppose them if they are there, but I don't even bother with looking for them, any more than I would bother to read something by the ... shall we say, the "moonbat" posters.

To be misogynist is certainly as foolish and despicable as to call anyone who opposes Clinton in any way a "Hillary hater", as of course "lylepink" is always wont to do. Doesn't that sound to you just like the Republican loonies who call anyone who criticizes Bush a "Bush-basher"? But then, you have to be truly non-partisan to be able to see the multitude of similarities between the Bushes and the Clintons, both the has-beens and the wannabes.

I'm off now to work for a living--what a horrible way to live. Have a good day!

drindl - you are leading in the race to dementia. Loud and dumb, you better get with it.

claudia, nice dig at the GOP. We get it, you hate the Republicans. Roger that.

The question was, what specifically are HRC's quals? And I answered it.

If you know of something else on her resume, please feel free to chime in.

Course it's no big deal to you chickenhawks who gets up blown up over there -- it's a video game to you. You're quite comfortable so why would you give damn about your fellow americans? It's all just a game, just a joke, just smething to stoke your egos and make you feel' manly'.

The Whitehouse & Graham interview is at

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/mukasey_10-31.html
---------------------------------
drindl, I do not think MH intervened b/c of the Clinton "connection", but I have read this tale, and others of his first term in office, and based on the importuning of Baptist Ministers he knew he pressed for clemency and parole in this case and in others. His judgment sucked, and he tried to cover it up at the time, and when this creep committed a rape-murder after release he begged forgiveness. The Willie Horton moment all over again.

There was a Clinton connection, but no evidence that it directly affected MH's very bad decision. As the article says, the creepy Post journalist who manufactured
a whole story about DNA clearing this rapist was also believed by MH, over his parole board.

Not a glorious moment in the history of the Baptist Ministry or the State of AK or the Governorship of MH.

Imagine signing up for State Department Service and being sent....gasp...overseas. Kind of like being in the Reserves and...gasp...being called up to active duty.

claudialong | November 1, 2007 01:00 PM,
"Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs."

Foreign service officers have an obligation to uphold the oaths they took to carry out the policies of the government and be available to serve anywhere in the world. Since 2002, more than 1,500 U.S. diplomats have served at the Baghdad embassy and in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying areas. Number of dead - 0. Methinks they doth protest too much.

Blarg: When I use the term "Hillary Haters" it is directed to those in the political world that are so strongly opposed to Hillary. Most folks I know do not really hate in the term you seem to be implying. Reading "The Fix" on a daily basis, I find CC is opposed to Hillary, but not to that great extent I refer to as the "Hillary Haters". Chris Matthews is one of these folks and it goes back many years, anytime the name [Clinton] is mentioned by him it is easy to see. How you could think I am "Whining" is beyond me, for I am enjoying seeing these folks make fools of themselves.

yes drindl, you most certainly are one of the original moonbats on this blog. but who else could come up with such dementia as:
"live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will"
"extorted billions of US taxpayer dollars, in return for which he repeadtedly lied to start a war that would benefit mmostly himself and then spied for Iran. I guess bush will be giving him the Medal of Honor next"
"Some people here think he suffered a neurological event in '98 when his speech changed. Others insist it is just playing at "good 'ole boy".

Was that when he stopped drinking? Maybe he stopped in response to the neurological event..."

"the alternative is too terrifying to me to think about. A bloodthirsty dictator, and WW3."

And that is just a sampling of the wit and wisdom, although "some people here" say it is lunacy, of drindl. the prototype of the moonbat contingent. the rest of you try to keep up.

I've been waiting for the first mibrooks anti-Clinton post of the day and there it is!

This clown really needs an editor before he hits the Submit button. "The number of women posting here that say they are going to vote for Ms. Clinton based on the fact that she is a woman, based on revenge for some misdeed by a past spouse, is simply amazing."

Has even one woman posted such nonsense on here? Mibrooks, you are a sick, woman-hating deviant. We understand you've been wronged by the women in your life. There, there, it will be ok. Just get help immediately.

What is bothering me about this whole debate is that it is based on emotion, not on issues and facts. The number of women posting here that say they are going to vote for Ms. Clinton based on the fact that she is a woman, based on revenge for some misdeed by a past spouse, is simply amazing. Where are the issues? Look, in case it has passed your notice, the stock market is falling..again...it is now down by nearly 400 points. The dollar is at an all time low, GM annouced the layoff of 12,000 workers and Boeing, IBM, Microsoft, Intel all have announced plans to move an estimated 500,000 more jobs offshore! Not only that, housing sales dropped by 30% last month, are down by over 70% in the past three months and that foreign capital keeping our ramshackle economy is leaving/fleeing at a record pace. OPEC is moving, as I write this, to peg oil to the Euro. The international bond market has switched from the dollar to the Euro. European countries are expecting the dollar, our entire economy to collapse THIS WINTER! Hillary CLinton's stated policy for dealing with this is continued outsourcing, more guest workers, a flood of jobs and money exiting this country for cheap labor markets in Asia, primarily India and China.

Only a fool cannot see that this is going to lead to a disaster of monsterous proportions. Ms. Clinton hasn't got idea one of how to deal with this, she hasn't addressed it, she is stuck in the past with her failing free market, free trade bankrupt ideology, and her relationships with and dependency upon big corporations, bankers and lobbyests makes it highly unlikely that she will be able to deal with this effectively. The whole thing is coming unravelled right before our eyes. Women may indeed succeed in gaining some manner of revenge upon men who wronged them, but the cost is going to be a lot higher than they bargained for.

What WAS Graham's point, Mark?

'moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat moonbat"

see i can do it too, koz, just like you!

Colin, thanks.

Did you see Graham and Whitehouse on Lehrer last night discussing Mukasey? If not, I 'll summarize later, or you can probably find the transcript. Attributing Graham's position to McCain I can understand where they are coming from. If the SJC gives me a vote on Mukasey, I vote "no", even 'though I see Graham's point.

"live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will"

HHhhooooowwwwwllllllll

what a strange and frightening world you moonbats inhabit. Keep your head down, here come some black helos, right for your roof. Is your tin foil hat out of adjustment again?

surprise - the other total nutjob moonbat takes the side of Loud and dumb.

drindl - I am a Republican and according to the new rules set by Loud and dumb, you are no longer permitted to offer any opinions on any republicans. Please heed the new moonbat law. If you don't support one of your own kind, who will?

Maybe you two could bark at the evil bush moon rising together one evening. Or is that the idea here?

'hat some U.S. prisoners would "love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo." '

Well, I throw up my hands. Pardoning a child rapist because the victim is a cousin of Bill Clinton, and now this kind of demogogery -- yeah, you bet, lots of US prisoners would like to be in a facility where you live in a dog cage blindfolded and get tortured at will--yeah, they're lining up for it. You know, I actually wanted to like this guy. I honestly wanted to beleive they aren't all hateful. And I still do beleive that of McCain. But he has shown by caving on Mukasey that he will do what he is told also.

Loud and dumb - please refrain from making any posts about Bush. he is a Republican and according to your own rules - a committed leftist like you should have no viable opinion about any Republicans. your post is therefore nothing but clutter.

'my screen name has offended loudon's sensibilities. Excellent! I will consider that a success, and carry on ignoring his vapid postings as per usual.'

clearly you're here then not for reasonable discussion, but just to offend eveyone you can and disrupt the forum. just like koz.

"moonbat.... mumble mumble moonbat.... mumble mumble... Libs... moonbat... mumble... dems bad... zzzzzzzz.... moonbat"
--zouk

Kind of like what a dog hears, hm Loudon? He just doesn't know many words and his love for the savage Malkin, the world's meanest woman, well he just can't do anything but repeat what she says...over and over and over.

You're right there Loud and dumb - no sense asking the Dem lead and record low rated Congrese to actually do thier job and pass legislation and confirm nominees. better to obfuscate, regulate, investigate, pontificate....

so far one meaningful Dem law has passed - min wage - well maybe not that meaningful but there is so little to work with. but there is so much to investigate - like whether the AG can fire attornies. Well yes they can. If you're a Dem you may want to find a way to make this look improper and waste more time.

but if you're a Dem what you really want to do is socialize health care before Hillary goes down in flames and that hope with it. you may want to take vote after vote on losing a war that seems already won. anything but pass laws and approve nominees.

but this, like all things, must be................wait for it.................Bush's fault.

Colin: Bush is now "demanding" a swift confirmation for Mukasey. What makes him think he can demand anything from Congress after his recent outburst and vetoes?

Maybe they'll trade him SCHIP for Mukasey.

Mark -- here's an example of Huck's views on civil liberties generally that tends to be supportive of - in my view - illegitimate executive actions. I'll take a longer look later to try and find what I was thinking of relative to torture. Admittedly, I may be wrong on that one.

Guantanimo:

"Huckabee, who has visited Guantanamo, says the facility is better than some prisons in the United States and that some U.S. prisoners would "love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo." Huckabee in June 2007 also warned against releasing its prisoners. "If we let somebody out and it turns out that they come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers, we're going to be asking how come we didn't stop them, we had them detained," he said. "If we're going to make a mistake right now, let's make it on the side of protecting the American people."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13816/

On a somewhat related note, did you see that McCain has come out in favor of Mukasey's nomination, despite Mukasey's refusal to disavow waterboarding as torture? I understand the politics here, but still this is a sad moment for me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

that looks like Dem math allright. Only problem is....you are a moonbat. the english language is very descriptive and the term fits you like a glove.

Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to anyone that is liberal or on the left.

According to an article by New York Times language maven William Safire, the term was first used by the famous science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in 1947. Heinlein used the term in a 1947 short story, "Space Jockey", as the name of the third stage of a rocket bound for the moon.

The term has been used by three columnists at the Boston Herald newspaper. Howie Carr uses the term regularly in his columns. Margery Eagan, another Herald columnist, has used the term several times to characterize some supporters of Democratic governor Deval Patrick, and Michael Graham has also used the term.

It also refers to a certain idiot found on the WaPo blog who uses the screen name - Loudon voter but who is more widely known for his true character trait as "Loud and Dumb". Others on this blog are also characterized as loony left moonbats - you know who you are.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated," according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been "defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically," referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group's tactics have backfired.

take it back Dirty Harry!

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/iraqi-islamic-party-says-al-qaeda-is-defeated.htm

is the war really lost - or just your dreams of a continuing majority.

I'll deal with koz and proud in one post so as not to clutter the board like those two.

koz: Malkin is the only blogger who uses the term moonbat. You're the only poster on here who uses the term moonbat. I've done the math: (Malkin + moonbat) + (KOZ + moonbat) = KOZ is a freak.

proud: uh, I think you need a refresher course in reading. Your screen name, far from "offending" my "sensibilities," instead allows me to consider your posts about the Democrats to be nothing but clutter. Your screen name is in fact a useful tip to the lack of usefullness in your posts about Democrats.

Proud - well done. What can you expect from someone who finds their identity in the fact that they vote. Hey look at me - I vote. Listen to me, I know stuff. I like to use cutesy names like Ace and numbnuts. I haven't progressed much since middle school. But I vote.

And if you don't agree with him/her/it, you won't be read. What a terrifying threat.

But seriously Loud and dumb, what do you offer us of value? Keep in mind my whole goal in life is to somehow sway your single vote over to my side. that is why we GOPs blog here. to convert votes of the immature and helpless. That is why we target you. we know drindl is way too far gone, but there is hope for you. you are obviously maleable.

Apparently my screen name has offended loudon's sensibilities. Excellent! I will consider that a success, and carry on ignoring his vapid postings as per usual.

Because you are a numbnuts moonbat, Ace.

If the shoe fits. who else would proclaim that only committed moonbats should be read on this blog? answer - a committed moonbat.
Afraid of a little reality creeping into your shadowy world?

Most women I've heard talk about this (albeit the few clinton supporters) feel as if she was "jumped on" by the men in the race.

Amazing how gender is played in this race as a matter of convenience.

When she was attacking the right-wing machine, she was thought as "strong, a fighter etc" In fact, she reveled in being the one who has "fought the right-wing machine and has always come out on top"

Oh how the times have changed.

Now, her gender is conveniently important when she's being challenged as if it's unfair.

Her challengers can't talk about her marriage.

Can't talk about her time in the white house because the papers are under lock and key.

Can't talk about her untrustworthiness because it's unfair.

Can't challenge her in a debate because it's pile on.

Can't call her by her first name.

What's next,

Can't stand to close to her because it's harrassment?

Colin, if you read my post again you would see that I said MH had asserted himself against torture. Period. I was sure that I had heard that in 2 R debates.

I did not know where he stood on unitary executive theory, but your post troubles me [more than why he pardoned a child molester]. Do you have a cite? I will read his web page again, in an hour or so.

proud: Here's the problem. Your screen name indicates that you are a strong partisan. Not a conservative, just a partisan. So why should anyone believe that anything you have to say about the Democratic candidates now is nothing but a calculated effort to get the weakest possible candidate in the general election as the opponent for your party's candidate. For you, party is preeminent. At least your honest about that, but it undercuts your credibility.

Therefore, I just can't take you seriously -- all because of your screen name. Most of the other regular posters at least hold out the possibility of their voting for a candidate of either party. Not so in your case.

In a baffling display of censorship Loudonvoter writes: "Strong partisans have no business butting in until the other party has chosen its candidate."

Need I remind you that this is a platform to comment on local, state and national politics and political news. More communication and sharing of ideas is always preferable in a free society, even if those opinions are at odds with your own.

Have you never read a post and had your mind changed, or thought "Gee, I never thought of the issue like that"? I have. Right here on the Fix, from posters with whom I generally disagree.

Your decision to read or not read others' postings is completely up to you. However, attempts to silence dissent, opposition and alternative viewpoints is not very democratic of you and I doubt many will agree with it, despite their partisanship.

Lylepink, you want some examples of whining? Look at CC's post. He describes Hillary's media strategy of acting like a scared woman who's being bullied by mean nasty men. Complaining about your opponents' criticisms, especially such mild criticisms, is whining. So is referring to anyone who dislikes your candidate as "Hillary Haters", for that matter.

Proud: I have found no "Whining" by Hillary or any of her supporters. By you and other "Hillary Haters" to keep repeating this does not make it so. Appears you are up to your usual [create something that does not exist] dis-information speel. The cable media is doing the same thing. Not working according to snap pooling.

I was pretty disgusted with the debate. Regardless of who they were aimed at, Russert should try to ask questions that might actually let the voters get some good information, instead of always, always playing "gotcha." It's even more irritating when all the "gotchas" are aimed at one candidate and the others get questions that are easy, or else opportunities to criticize that same candidate. I thought Hillary did an admirable job under the circumstances. Heck Obama gets nervous when he answers a softball question and Edwards' people can't even manage to smack down those old attacks about his haircut and new house.

Obama, Edwards should try building support on their own terms instead of going negative. If for no other reason, it's terrible strategy - that worked out great for Dean-Gephardt's mutually assured destruction in Iowa last time around!

Chris Matthews is nuts, who takes that guy seriously? For real.

proud: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying I shouldn't expect Democrats to comment on the next GOP debate? You're right. Strong partisans have no business butting in until the other party has chosen its candidate.

there you go with "moonbats" again. Your keyboard must be stuck. Wonder why that is.

hey numbnuts - "you look like you've just finished masturbating to Michelle Malkin's blog."

what are you twelve? you seem to have a fascination with this particular activity and person. Are you cutting class today junior? Are all your posts scatalogical and perverse, Ace? R U BFF w/ Malkin? Or just dream it?

what a funny lot you moonbats are. Existing in a world where Krazy Keith delivers the "news".

Loudon, I'll remember you said that after the next R debate.

proud: serious question: Why do you comment incessantly on Democratic intra-party activities? You're not going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. Given your screen name why should anyone spend a second reading anything you have to say about Democrats?

Game for everyone!

We can still safely assume that Clinton will be one of the two or three candidates who will make it through the primaries. My question: out of the supporters of all of the other candidates, how many will turn to support Clinton if theirs calls it quits? Obviously this will depend a bit on who the other two are, too, but Clinton has a pretty clear "market segment" that her supporters will fall in.

My guesses:

Biden: 70%
Dodd: 40%
Edwards: 10%
Gravel: 10%
Kuchinich: 5%
Obama: 15%
Richardson: 35%

If you like, include the splits for matchups that you think are likely: Clinton-Obama, Clinton-Biden, whatever.

"Personally, I can't stand Hillary's campaign tactic of a "poor woman attacked by those mean men." Pleeeeeze."

Truthhunter, I agree 110%. Poor little Hillary...gimme a break! Playing the gender card will not garner her any more support, imo. Especially so early on. Dang, they just took the gloves off and whadya know, she's starts whining right away.

That's the only way her team can spin it, I guess. It wouldn't look good to admit that she blew it in the debate and it had n o t h i n g to do with her being the only woman.

"So how do you define best leader?"

Leadership is a quality wherein someone (the leader) can inspire people to do things they otherwise might be disinclined to do.

I do not see evidence of Leadership in HRC. If you look at the Senate careers of McCain and Biden (as examples), there is evidence of leadership, of building coalitions - bipartisan coalitions - for the purpose of achieving common goals. I think there are multiple candidates who are more suited to this role than HRC.

bsimon: "Independant of the alleged 'toughest broad' credentials, shouldn't we be selecting a President based on who is the best leader for the country, not on who is most likely to penetrate a glass ceiling unscathed?"

Problem: Who among the current crop of candidates would you say fits that description? Someone who is competent but colorless? How about charismatic but divisive? And don't even start talking about someone who can "unite the country. That's just laughable.

So how do you define best leader?

here's the story numbnuts, read for yourself:

http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/456858.html

BTW, do you really think anyone seriously thinks Pelosi won't be reelected? If so, you're far, far dumber than you look.

And regarding Kos, what is that? You seem quite familiar with it. Not me. And you really should at least try to stop using the word moonbat -- it makes you look like you've just finished masturbating to Michelle Malkin's blog.

DonJasper asks
"Can anyone name a tougher broad than Hillary?"

Scroll up in the thread a bit; there're some interesting comments on Ann Richards.

Independant of the alleged 'toughest broad' credentials, shouldn't we be selecting a President based on who is the best leader for the country, not on who is most likely to penetrate a glass ceiling unscathed?

Personally, I can't stand Hillary's campaign tactic of a "poor woman attacked by those mean men." Pleeeeeze.

It's demeaning to women, and I for one don't like to be talked down to and treated like a mindless nitwit.

Let's face it, Hillary is tougher than most campaigners in either party. Her media vapours have the opposite effect on me.

Without a doubt, Biden is gaining momentum in Iowa.... a "real stuff" kind of a leader groundswell.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Sorry dave, the devil made me do it:

'Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:

Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .

Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

The first woman president is going to have to have skin as thick as old shoe leather - regardless of her politics. It would probably help to have a husband that has been known to cheat on her - to see how she deals with public/personal humiliation.

We all know you can tell a Republican by their slime, and the first b*tch would have to show she could deal with unsavory personal issues being discussed in public.

Can anyone name a tougher broad than Hillary?

It's a wonder that Osama could keep a straight face while trying to link Hillary to 'business as usual'. Or as the 'establishment' candidate.

GordonsGirl,
"Anybody notice how little press Obama's getting for saying he believes Spitzer is right? Not much... WHY??? Because he simply TOOK A STAND." So did Dodd and it was not the stand that sits well with liberals. Why is nobody talking about that? Rest assured, if Obama wins the D nomination, they'll be talking about it.

Loud and dumb - was that in CA only, nationwide, district by district? what happened to your own proclaimed metric? It would help if you actually thought a single idea throught before cutting it from Kos and pasting it here.

I don't know why I am engaging moonbats today but here goes:

Drindl - recruiting for new soldiers is very sensitive to unemployment in the general population. you see the pay is low (something like .89 of the civilian pay) and the work is dangerous at times - mostly the armor and infantry. when we have a long period of record unemployment, you should expect that military recruting will be a challenge.

But I am sure these facts don't comport with your surrender-crat world view. Low unemployment is not something that can be attributed to Bush. Only poor recruting.

HHoooowwwlll.

"they said all those things, dave, and much more -- you want links?" I'm sure they did and that proves they are republicans. Please don't send links, I can't deal with hyperventilation this afternoon...

From a recent Sacramento Bee story on approval ratings:

"Still, the Democrats now in charge of Congress fared better than Republicans, with a 34 percent approval rating compared to 20 percent for the GOP."

Sorry to bust your puny nads, Zouk, but you really shouldn't be holding your breath for a GOP retake of Congress next year.

they need you, zouk. go for it! they'll take anybody now, even those with very low IQs and violent tendencies, even criminal records:

'WASHINGTON -- The Army began its recruiting year Oct. 1 with fewer signed up for basic training than in any year since it became an all-volunteer service in 1973, a top general said Wednesday.

Gen. William S. Wallace, whose duties as commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command include management of recruiting, told reporters at the Pentagon that the historic dip will make it harder to achieve the full-year recruiting goal _ after just barely reaching it in the year ended Sept. 30.

Achieving the Army's recruiting goals _ a challenge in the best of times _ is not only more difficult now but also of more consequence. That is because the Army has decided that it must grow its active-duty force by several thousand soldiers a year in order to relieve strain on war-weary troops.'

This 48-year-old woman is embarrassed for all her fellow females crying that Hillary was beat up on. Come ON, everybody!!! You can't have it both ways - a female candidate who must always get special treatment simply due to her gender. If HRC is as tough as she wants us to believe, she must show a thicker skin. Trust me, what she received Tuesday evening is child's play compared to what the GOP has waiting for her.

This post-debate cry of victimhood only confirms what I've long suspected: HRC is not the woman she wants us to think she is. John Edwards was right: Stop running a campaign and simply tell the truth.

Anybody notice how little press Obama's getting for saying he believes Spitzer is right? Not much... WHY??? Because he simply TOOK A STAND.

KOZ: "just more in the long line of insults aimed at your fellow bloggers. try for once to deal with the candidates or issues."

Try reading some of your own posts, sniveler.

they said all those things, dave, and much more -- you want links?

oh look - we're winning!

'Uneasy U.S. diplomats yesterday challenged senior State Department officials in unusually blunt terms over a decision to order some of them to serve at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or risk losing their jobs.

At a town hall meeting in the department's main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State's personnel policies in Iraq. They took issue with the size of the embassy -- the biggest in U.S. history -- and the inadequate training they received before being sent to serve in a war zone. One woman said she returned from a tour in Basra with post-traumatic stress disorder only to find that the State Department would not authorize medical treatment.

Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard.'

didn't you all already know that Russert, Oddball Mathews, Obama and Edwards are all an important part of the VRWC?

Everyone is. but you also know that any issue which requires a decision is just a Republican talking point. no need to respond when you are the victim.

Alls fair in love and war they say.
In sports, its not always easy to win. Its even tougher when the refs work against you as well.
'Meet The Press' just lost a viewer. Tim Russert, someone I admired (past tense) did a huge dis-service to the public by being the seventh dwarf in Philly. I am a Republican, not a proud one, but one non-the-less, and we were treated much differently in our debates. That's sad.
The conversations around my office is, 'there are two men who is responsible for Hillary Clinton's success, Bill Clinton because of his popularity and George Bush because of his administrations hipocracy,corruptness and incompetence.
After this last Democratic Debate, let me suggest the list of people most responsible for the success of Hillary Clinton grew by 7. Good by 'Meet The Press' and the 'hacker' Tim Russert.

claudialong - "saying stuff about republican men like, they have such big shoulders and smell so manly" No really, stop - you're making my sides hurt! I can't catch my breath!

Best Moment, Period:

When Hillary got visibly angry when her competitors razzed her for her very, err, confusing answer on Spitzer's license plan. Both Dodd and Obama got the best of her, and Obama had the audience laughing at her rambling, "meaning of is" hair-splitting.

She raised her voice--yes, even more!--and got a flush in her cheeks. Methinks tougher attacks from a Republican candidate will make her crack into full Cruella Deville mode. Let's get this party started quickly.

yiiiikkkess - the truth is finally emerging

Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012."

Clinton hemmed and hawed about the processes of the archives, and moving at the speed the bureaucracy--Way to show that get-'er-done spirit, Hill! Can't wait to see you get to work on the whole federal government!--when she knows full well she could speed the process along and ask Bill to remove his rule. Russert, undeterred, plows on:

"But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?"

Clinton: "That's not my decision to make." Uh-huh.

Another great one from Russert: "Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, It's a no. I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said no.

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000. You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?"

On the Social Security crisis, which Hill claims doesn't exist anymore, Russert strikes again: "You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: We are in a -- heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits, Bill Clinton, 1998... Is that a Republican talking point?"

the lies and vacant answers are starting to unravel.

My fellow moonbats:

"Hillary succumbed to the Left's favorite bogeyman--the stolen election!

"Well, I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since."

and don't forget world trade center building 7. HHhoooowwwwlllllll

so, lots of time on your hands, koz? what did you say you did for a lving again? collect welfare checks?

The decrease in casualties in Iraq is directly related to the decrease in the mentions of Iraq in Democrat debates. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it?

Sept. 26 debate: 56
Oct. 30 debate: 44

MK Ham

'I need to find a new party...'

I would strongly suggest that in any case dave. Looks like yours is going to tank in the next election.

as far as what they did before -- that is irrelevant. hillary clinton was president of the college republicans. is she still a republlian, dave? i have been watching them viciously attacking democrats for years with my own eyes and saying stuff about republican men like, they have such big shoulders and smell so manly -- it's pretty easy to see where their affection lies.

loud and dumb - do you just play at ignorance or is it inbred? I specifically said those ratings were in their own districts. I guess the urge to repeat lame Kos talking points was just too strong. but you moonbats don't often make any sense, why should we expect anything different?

and as usual your input adds nothing of substance to the debate - just more in the long line of insults aimed at your fellow bloggers. try for once to deal with the candidates or issues. you would have to engage what the rest of us call reason but you may be able to do this, despite the evidence so far.

claudialong,
"Mathews and Russert and all the other R 'centrist' pundits in the DC cocktail weenie circuit are so terrified a Dem will win and they won't be invited to the cool parties anymoe that they are going to go after Hilary with everything they've got."

This is so laughable that I'm literally disturbing my co-workers. What did stalwart Republicans Mathews, Russert and Brian Williams do before they got media jobs? Before joining NBC News, Russert served as counselor in New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office in Albany in 1983 to 1984 and was chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. He served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and losing his party's nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974. College dropout Brian Williams took an internship with the administration of President Jimmy Carter. If this lineage constitutes the center of the Republican party, I need to find a new party...

Thanks for the laugh, koz. Your lunatic incoherence is always amusing. You seem to get more humorously inane every day.

Mark and other who are interested in Huck check this out. The rape victim, Ashley Stevens, was a cousin of Clinton's and a high-school student. This from the Arkansas papers:

'But the Times' new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond's release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419

All this to free an animal who raped a child. I could never vote for this man.

Just because I haven't answered a single question yet doesn't mean I am going to start now. all this endless questioning is just piling on. I don't have to answer questions. bill said so. those answers are sealed until 2012.

the blue dress democrat

to Kingofzouk:If it's so wonderful over there,are you planning a vacation soon to see all of our wonderful work??
Al Quaeda isn't dead or gone,it's stronger than ever,remember,the REAL Al Quaeda is in Afghanistan.What a moron!!!!
Iraq is nothing but corruption and death and I'm sure that Iraqi civilians would side with me on this one. They are still a country with no country. They are an occupational haven for the Big Oil giants,that's all.
As long as Bin Laden is running around,
we've lost. He did more than just destroy the twin towers in New York.Let's see,6yrs and 4000 troops dead,30,000 injured,untold Iraqi civilian death,in the 100's of thousands,we'll never know,millions displaced,2.? trillion dollars stolen,our Constitution in tatters,foreclosures on the rise,our country dividing as we write,
Yeah,we won. What a moron!

Once again, KOZ is laboring under the mistaken belief that voters vote for "Congress" and that anyone outside Nevada or San Francisco can vote for Reid or Pelosi.

The kingofzouk posting protocol:

Pelosi, Reid, blah blah blah. Moonbat, Kos, blah blah blah. Ignorant coward blah blah blah blah. MoveOn Rufas blah blah blah.

Insult vigorously and nastily while simultanteously accusing others of being insulting and nasty.

Repeat ad infinitum.

The political strategy is clear enough. Mrs. Clinton wants to roll to her party's nomination on a tide of "inevitability" while disguising her real agenda as much as possible. But Democratic voters ought to consider whether they want to put all their hopes for retaking the White House on Mrs. Clinton's ability to obfuscate like her husband without his preternatural talent for it. Aside from lacking her husband's political gifts, Hillary's challenge is that we've all seen this movie before. And performances like Tuesday's might be enough to convince voters to opt for a candidate who is his own man.

good luck with that, you're going to need it. Even with the GOP brand at a 20 year low, the Dems poll even. Pelosi is below 505 in her own district. Reid is below 30% in his. congress as a whole is down near 11% - a record in miasma.

As long as the Dems keep doing what they do, and the people find out what the facts are, the GOPs will stage a huge come back. how could they not against an opponent like that?

Ugh. I have Clinton fatigue. You'd think there were no other Democrat candidates to write about...

Senator Clinton was especially clumsy in trying to evade any clear position on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. When asked why, in her words, it "makes a lot of sense" to give licenses to illegals, her first answer sounded like an endorsement. Mr. Spitzer is trying to "fill the vacuum left by the failure of this Administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said.

But after Senator Chris Dodd disagreed, calling a license a "privilege" not a right, she broke in a moment later to clarify: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it." This prompted Mr. Dodd to interject that her second answer didn't sound like her first. So Mr. Russert tried again: "Do you support [Mr. Spitzer's] plan?"

"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha," Mrs. Clinton replied. "It [Spitzer's proposal] makes a lot of sense." So, she does support it? Unfortunately, she wasn't done speaking. "Do I think this is the best thing for any Governor to do? No." At that point, Mr. Williams changed the subject.

Huh?????

In the 1990s, "Clintonesque" became a by-word for political double-speak. We even became, briefly, a nation of deconstructionists when President Bill Clinton mused on the meaning of "is."

Such existential questions seemed to be in the past. But with another Clinton running as if she's all but a sure thing for the White House, Clintonesque is once again becoming a politically relevant adjective. In Tuesday night's Democratic Presidential debate, the moderators and Hillary Clinton's fellow panelists took pains to pin her down on one question after another, without notable success. The junior Senator from New York seems increasingly to have adopted her husband's political methods, minus the savoir-faire. The result is that it's impossible to know what she believes about anything.

On Iran's nuclear ambitions, moderator Brian Williams asked a number of the candidates what their "red line" was. As he put it to Barack Obama, "What would make it crystal clear in your mind that" the U.S. "should attack Iran?" When he repeated the question to Senator Clinton, her answer was, in sum, "I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush Administration." She added, "we've got to rein him in." And, no, she didn't mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When pressed by Mr. Williams, she clarified, in a way. "We're not in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that. But we shouldn't be doing nothing."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010809

Indeed!

'Drindl -- Out of curiosity, do I intuit from your comments that you now support Hillary? '

No Colin, I just sent some $ to Biden. He's my choice at this point. I had some issues with him and some of his votes, but his performances lately -- and his stands -- have been strong and sensible.

But like I said, I intend to vote D this time in the hopes of shocking the R party into returning to some rational form of conservatism, instead of whatever lunatic neocon fantasy they are pursuing now..

drindl - are you now filling the role of both rufas and Ignorant coward?

you can tell us now, you were ignorant coward all along weren't you?

Are you even capable of independent thought or do you just spew every moveon/Kos talking point you can find. I must assume that the writing biz is slow these days, so much time on your hands.

If you ever come to the realization of a single fact, I would be happy to humiliate your views. Until then, your rampant emotionalism is worthy of ridicule.

you and your kind are most certainly what we call the

Blue Dress Democrats

and moreover - the moonbat loons of the left. Try to say soemthing on point for once. Until then I am sure your constant spate of insults and innuendo will continue unabated. We thinking bloggers will mostly ignore you. and the votes you seek in the way of

Hillary for intern

just won't materialize. Of course, an intern might get bill's attention. that would be something new and different.

I find it odd that the "I'm just a girl" and "piling on" defense did not seem to be a problem for Democrats when it was used during her campaign against Rick Lazio. What has changed? And a better question, if she wins the nomination, will it be a problem with Democrats in the general election?

Posted by: dave | November 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Dave, the short answer is that Lazio crossed a line when he pushed the clipboard at her. HRC backed away slightly, looking a little alarmed, and Lazio pushed it at her again, a little more vigorously. Just in terms of body language and gender dynamics, it was an uncomfortable moment, and Lazio's campaign was essentially finished.

So, physical intimidation: bad; verbal jousting: okay, and quit whining about it, Team Hillary.

'I suspect that at least McCain, Romney & Huckabee would not be as similar to Bush as they would have primary voters believe. I am absolutely convinced that McCain, warts and all, would be a superior President to HRC. The jury is out on Huckabee and Romney.'

Romney is an absolute zero -- an empty suit, a puppet. He will do exactly as his RNC masters bid him do. Huckabee I used to have more respect for. Now I find out that he went to a great deal of trouble to have a rapist released early from prison -- because the rape victim was a cousin of Bill Clinton's. I have links for this, btw. He even wrote the rapist a nice letter. So then the guy goes out and murders a woman. So I question his judgement and I think he's a lot further right than you know.

McCain, on the other hand, I do respect. However, I doubt if he would be much different than Hillary as a president--he has pandered jusst as much and been as dishonest as her since his campaign began. He licks the boots of the ayatollahs and that makes me sick.

No they are not all alike, but they are all repellent to me, except I could live with McCain, same as with Hillary, if push comes to shove. I do not want either a theocracy or a dictatorship, and that's why I'm oting D.

Mark -- Other than McCain, who is the other R that you see as favoring good government? Huckabee, if that's your #2, has indicated that he does favor the unitary executive and has engaged in the same "lets expand Guantanimo" rhetoric as the rest of the GOP field. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Drindl -- Out of curiosity, do I intuit from your comments that you now support Hillary? I ask b/c I was under the impression that you disfavored her for some of the same reasons I do. Also, I would add that Hillary is definitely trying to "play the gender card" if you look at her campaign strategy. This "piling on" BS is just silly. You can't run an "inevitability" campaign and then credibly complain when other candidates rightfully focus on your errors and weaknesses.

I disagree with Senator Clinton on a number of her positions but the slugfest that the media staged the other night so that her six male rivals and the two pompous moderators could use her as a punchbag was one of the more disgraceful political media events staged for a while.
This was a sorry display of a bunch of guys indignant that a woman has so far topped them in polls and of two full-of-themselves talking heads who acted on behalf of many in the media that were eager for a brawl.
On this see also,
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2007/11/eight-guys-poun.html

drindl, After watching Podhoretz perform, RG is not on my list of possibles. I now have 6Ds and 2Rs on my possibles and only one of the Rs is the one who has proven again and again that he believes in transparent government. He is also the one [RadPat will remind me that Paul, also, is on my side about this] who is least likely of all to hide behind the theory of the unitary executive, and the 2Rs on my list both reject torture in no uncertain terms. You know that "process stuff" is more important to me than ideology, but I mention it because you have been lumping all Rs together and they are not, any more than are all Ds. I'll bet bsimon has a similar take.

And to think I USED TO like Chris Matthews.What has gotten into him? It's almost comical the way he berates Hillary on his show,which I will no longer watch. During the debates and then the follow-ups on MSNBC made it seem like I was watching Faux News. All of the Hillary haters write nothing but talking points from Faux News or worse Rush Limpaugh. Why is it when Chris asks someone a question about Hillary and doesn't get the answer he's looking for he cuts them off? When announcers become too subjective with their own interests,they should not be allowed on the air. It was disgraceful all around that night. It looked more like a "Get Hillary" debate than a true debate about the issues. Tim Russert should not be allowed to moderate another debate.It was despicable the way he looked while attacking,not questioning,Hillary. If he did that in the Republican debates he'd be fired. I say let Keith Olbermann moderate the next Rep. debate and use the same tactics on them. It would be fun to see those losers crack under pressure, something that Hillary did not do. All this krap about double-speak is because you don't listen to her,only what you want to hear. How about Mitts' flip-flops,too numerous to mention,or Rudys' just tossing out numbers with no factual data to back them up?? Hillary has my vote because she does have the best interests for the people who need it most. Irregardless what you say or write or feel about her,you know I'm right.
And thank you campaigndiaries,I looked at those poll results you posted and knew that the people are tired of this lying and stealing from the Republicans and just overall BS coming from the Neos' and the MSM. I'm sorry that Joe Biden isn't given more time like the other top three because he is the best out of any candidate,be it Dem or Rep. My only hope would be that he's chosen as Vice Pres,which he would do a great job.

Clinton/Biden 08'

They'll give our country back to us.

What measures of success do critics of Iraq's liberation now demand?

Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide.

What's more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules. Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones. There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And the country's institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers. The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote. Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions.

Add it all up. Iraq not only remains a democracy, but shows no sign of collapse. I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22687841-5000117,00.html

We win. they lose. what will Dems say?

Coffee break. Boko - In metro Austin I know dozens of Rs and none have Romney even on their radar, but I am sure they would vote for him if he were the nominee.

Even in TX, Rs are not a majority of voters. But the Is will tend to vote R in a national race. KBH would seal that. Of course, MH would probably seal it, too. Judging by the recent Governor's race, we have:

39% Rs, 30% Ds, and 31% Is.

If there is still an R race with all the players in it when TX votes in March, it will not help Romney. I think the other 4 will finish ahead of him.

Women are certainly not alone in sizing up their presidential candidate based on breasts, lipstick shade and the "you go girl" factor. Plenty of Repugs picked the current prez (twice!) on how he looked clearing fake brush and strutting around on an aircraft carrier with a sock in his jumpsuit.

one more thing about rudy--an investigation now takingplace about this:

The radios used by the FDNY on 9/11 were precisely the same ones that malfunctioned during the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years after that attack, Giuliani did replace the defective equipment. But the new radios he bought under a no-bid, $14 million contract from Motorola (the previous contract was $1.4 million) were never field-tested. The "upgrade" proved disastrous. Within a week, the just-purchased radios were recalled after a firefighter's mayday went un-heard. Giuliani was forced to reissue the old, faulty batch. And on 9/11 when a police helicopter warned that the North Tower would collapse, more than 120 firefighters remained inside.

"The radios failed them and that was Giuliani failing them," says Roseleen Tallon, whose brother Sean was an FDNY member killed in 9/11.'

Giuliani's office did not return calls requesting comment.

"While I agree with you about the Dems, seriously, which R do you think could be better? I don't see it... Every republican who runs now haa a nearly monolithic agenda -- exactly the same one as George Wl bush. Not a one of them would do anything much different."


Well, therein lies the problem. Much like HRC is campaigning firstly on name recognition, secondly on nostalgia, I think the Rs are currently campaigning primarily on fear of HRC specifically & liberalism in general. In other words, I suspect that at least McCain, Romney & Huckabee would not be as similar to Bush as they would have primary voters believe. I am absolutely convinced that McCain, warts and all, would be a superior President to HRC. The jury is out on Huckabee and Romney.

And to think I USED TO like Chris Matthews.What has gotten into him? It's almost comical the way he berates Hillary on his show,which I will no longer watch. During the debates and then the follow-ups on MSNBC made it seem like I was watching Faux News. All of the Hillary haters write nothing but talking points from Faux News or worse Rush Limpaugh. Why is it when Chris asks someone a question about Hillary and doesn't get the answer he's looking for he cuts them off? When announcers become too subjective with their own interests,they should not be allowed on the air. It was disgraceful all around that night. It looked more like a "Get Hillary" debate than a true debate about the issues. Tim Russert should not be allowed to moderate another debate.It was despicable the way he looked while attacking,not questioning,Hillary. If he did that in the Republican debates he'd be fired. I say let Keith Olbermann moderate the next Rep. debate and use the same tactics on them. It would be fun to see those losers crack under pressure, something that Hillary did not do. All this krap about double-speak is because you don't listen to her,only what you want to hear. How about Mitts' flip-flops,too numerous to mention,or Rudys' just tossing out numbers with no factual data to back them up?? Hillary has my vote because she does have the best interests for the people who need it most. Irregardless what you say or write or feel about her,you know I'm right.
And thank you campaigndiaries,I looked at those poll results you posted and knew that the people are tired of this lying and stealing from the Republicans and just overall BS coming from the Neos' and the MSM. I'm sorry that Joe Biden isn't given more time like the other top three because he is the best out of any candidate,be it Dem or Rep. My only hope would be that he's chosen as Vice Pres,which he would do a great job.

Clinton/Biden 08'

They'll give our country back to us.

The question is really, do you want four more years of exactly what we have now? Becuase if we elect another R, that is precisely what we will get...you know, Rudy the frontrunner's, idea of foreign policy is that we have to start 3 more wars during his term -- we need 'regime change' in Egypt, Iran and Syria. How long before the entire Muslim world, including the nukes of Pakistan, and possibly Russia and China