Regarding torture. I heard a great arguement, that ends this arguement for the gop.

"Can you use the information gather through torture in a court of law agaisnt teh defendant?"

Enough said. Gop loses. Sorry USMC

Oh, and I disagree with John McCain and Mike Huckabee about darn near everything. Yet I just called them decent b/c their views on torture reveal them to be, in my opinion, principled men. Again, this isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue and it's truly sad that you seem dead set on viewing something so fundamental in terms of something (political affiliation) so relatively unimportant.

You need to brush up on your logic before you head to law school my friend. I've already addressed all of your points. To repeat, yet again, I don't think it works. I've cited sources. You rely on the opinion of one CIA agent whose views are directly contradicted by others who were at the exact same interrogation. Oh, and he admits he opted to never learn the technique himself. Yet you declare that waterboarding categorically works. Interesting conclusion.

As to whether the technique is justified even if it does work, in any circumstance, I don't think it is. Your hypo, which literally is so unlikely to occur that it's laughable, doesn't change my calculation. We could do many many reprehensible things to marginally increase our own safety. As part of the bargain, we'd cease to be the greatest country in the world and -- in the truest sense possible -- the madmen threatening us truly would have won. The fact that you think we should resort to patently immoral behavior to improve our saftey by -- at best -- a tiny tiny margin is quite telling.

Oh and don't bother responding to points 2 & 4 above.

I'll take your silence to mean you concede waterboarding works.

I will therefore conclude you refuse to use that which works (for whatever fill-in-the-blank reason), under the guise of an ineffective argument.

I'm not masking my arguments or my intentions.

A Republican is only "decent" when they agree with you.

I guess it's easy from your vantage point to criticize how your life is protected.

A few will always stand between the barbarians and civilization.

A few will always stand against civilization, from within.

History will always repeat itself.

USMC Mike -- Four democrats knew about it and therefore any democrats objecting to it now is political? Interesting logic. It's wrong and, on this issue at least, I support John McCain and am ashamed of Nancy Pelosi's inaction. This should not be a partisan issue. It's sad to me that you seem to view it as one.

As far as the Pulitzer having no value, not much I can say about that. Suskind is a universally respected journalist and not viewed as a partisan. You can attack him if you want to, but that strikes me as completely illogical.

As far as justifying torture morally, seems pretty clear that you're at odds with the church on this one. And, FYI, I'm christian myself and don't see ANY support in the Bible to support torture under any circumstances. It's a slippery slippery slope when you start deciding its OK to torture the "guilty" to potentially save the "innocent." Quite simply, that logic can be applied to justify literally anything. Good to know, however, that you're apparently completely comfortable with these techniques. That means you are now ready to run for office on a "values" platform.

Oh, and FYI your preferred candidate -- Huckabee -- has now changed his tune and decided that torture is not acceptable. I give him credit for doing so and would suggest that you take a look at his recent statements. Also, feel free to read the Teddy Roosvelt quote I posted above. LOTS of decent republicans understand this issue. It's sad that you don't.

I actually happen to dissagree with mibrooks27 I think that Clinton is most definantly an electable candidate. She is respectable and by far more electable than any of the republican canidates. The reality is that I would elect either Obama or Clinton so it doesn't really matter.

Claudia,

You didn't answer a single point.

Instead you attacked me.

Not surprising.

You're not hurting my feelings by skipping my posts.

"USMC Mike -- Once again, your maturity is impressive. So much easier to vilify the "opposition" than to actually THINK about an issue...

One, Ron Suskind is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and his account is based upon multiple sources who were also at the interrogation in question. You should read his book on the topic. You might learn something.

Two, *your* source says in the interview he gave that even if waterboarding is accurate we shouldn't do it. Because we're the United States of America. You skipped that part in your original post.

Three, you never answered how torturing folks fits in with your religious beliefs. Pretty telling that you don't even try to justify this BS in moral terms.

Four, the "you wouldn't save your family" line is patently ridiculous and a typical right wing straw man argument. There is zero evidence that this stuff works better than soft interrogation methods. Prove to me that it does -- indeed, that it's the only option available -- and we can discuss your hypothetical. Otherwise, your scenario is just silly.

Finally, No I wasn't against waterboarding in 2002. Because at that time I assumed that the United States didn't torture people. Apparently I gave this administration too much credit. There is nothing political about opposing torture Mike. Again, to the extent Pelosi or any other 'D' didn't they were inexcusably wrong. "

1. the Pulitzer prize, like the Nobel, or even (to some extent) an oscar, is next to meaningless. Just mindless partisan crap.

2. You can't cherry-pick. If we should believe him that we shouldn't do it, we should also believe him that it works. If it works, apply to your point 4. His opinion about not doing it is -- an opinion.

3. I did justify it. I said it would be worse to let innocents die than to waterboard a guilty. Did you just skip that part?

How do --your-- religious beliefs (if you have any), call for the killing of innocents, and the sparing of the guilty (you are actually the one who didn't answer the question -- typical of you D's to make accusations that really only apply to yourselves)?

4. See point 2. Add to that -- saying a hypothetical is unlikely to occur is not the same as refuting it. You have chosen to intentionally skirt the question. I assume you would let your family member die.

5. It's obviously political. even you know that. Maybe not in your case, but the D's as a whole are guilty, red-handed. It's disgusting.

Blarg,
I said torture could be effective (in reference to getting intel). That is not the only thing that it has been used for obviously. Much like a gun, it can be used for several things, some better intentioned than others.

_Colin,
First off, it is debatable that waterboarding is torture. I know McCain says it is. I know that the Human Rights Groups say it is. But there are many people including our government (even pre-Bush) that did not think that psychological pressures like light deprivation, blasting sound, and simulating drowning (waterboarding) were torture. These techniques have been used extensively since the late 50's by the CIA with the knowledge of every president. The US has maintained for years that it did not torture and was able to say this because of the way we defined torture - and that was to not include psy techniques in the definition. I'm not saying that I am against soft techniques or that I think that in some cases those may work as well as or even better than hard interrogations. I am saying that rough interrogations have their place. But there is a difference between yelling at someone, depriving them of light, simulating drowning, roughing them up during questioning, brutally beating them, maiming them or killing them. Where the definition of torture begins is not an exact science.

Secondly, you can wait as long as you want for evidence that waterboarding is or isn't effective but you will never get it. The only studies that can be done on this are in coordination with people that are using waterboarding to get intel. That is the CIA. So these will never see the light of day because nobody will provide this sort of information to our enemies. Your choice is that there is some effectiveness to it that allowed the CIA and Presidents to continue the practice for close to 50 years. Or the CIA and the Presidents (both past and present) are simply sadists.

"Yeah, Eisenhower was a flaming communist liberal as well. Same with Nixon, since he created the EPA and bought into Keynesian economic theory. That's the modern GOP for you...

Posted by: _Colin | December 12, 2007 02:33 PM
"

The labels taht are put on people by others.

Read up on the a pat World teacher's take on this:

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

Before anyone rallies agaisnt me for attacking Romney's religon. Again, No one put that label "Mormon" on him. He chose to. So if mormonism is a big enough part of his like to call himself that, he should not be shy to answer about it. The is a differance between the labels we put on ourselves and the labels others put on us.

We are in 100% control of what we call ourselves (americans, christians, conservatives and so on). We have no power of how others view us.

The right dividing the country and attcking everyone not lie them, calling them liberals or terrorist or socialists, will come back around on them. Authoritarians these days. Freedoma dn change come back 08.

Obama for change.

We need someone who hasn't been tainted by being in politics for a long time. We need Obama.

Posted by: Nevadaandy
"

wHOA. i LIVE IN reno, republican district since it's inception. I'm glad to see we got some independant thinkers out here. I"M SURRONDED BY DITTOHEADS.

:)

Obama 08

Yeah, Eisenhower was a flaming communist liberal as well. Same with Nixon, since he created the EPA and bought into Keynesian economic theory. That's the modern GOP for you...

TR was a trust-busting conservationist who passed laws that required more business regulation. (Specifically, the Pure Food Act.) By modern Republican standards, that makes him a Marxist.

Here's a fun little quote on torture from another notoriously liberal and weak US President, who sent this cable:

THE PRESIDENT DESIRES TO KNOW IN THE FULLEST AND MOST CIRCUMSTANTIAL MANNER ALL THE FACTS . . . FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDS TO BACK UP THE ARMY IN THE HEARTIEST FASHION IN EVERY LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE METHOD OF DOING ITS WORK. HE ALSO INTENDS TO SEE THAT THE MOST VIGOROUS CARE IS EXERCISED TO DETECT AND PREVENT ANY CRUELTY OR BRUTALITY AND THAT MEN WHO ARE GUILTY THEREOF ARE PUNISHED. GREAT AS THE PROVOCATION HAS BEEN . . . NOTHING CAN JUSTIFY . . . THE USE OF TORTURE OR INHUMAN CONDUCT OF ANY KIND ON THE PART OF THE AMERICAN ARMY."

Who was that from, you ask? "This message from the president of the United States was sent not to members of the American military dealing with insurgents in Iraq but to an earlier Army dealing with insurgents in the Philippines approximately a century ago. Even without the characteristic capitalization of cablegrams sent during President Theodore Roosevelt's time, the strong statement of outrage over torture and high regard for American values comes through."

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/341376.html

This year's election is not only about which candidate has the integrity and judgement to make wise and sound decisions for America. It is also about the judgement of voters choosing the person who is best suited for America at this critical time in our history.

In the past two presidential elections, voters did not make the best judgement. Voters should not be foolish to think that by voting for Hillary we will also get Bill. I supported Bill, but I don't support Hillary because she is a far different person than her husband. Hillary is just as cunning and as secretive as Bush-Cheney. Besides, in a recent speech Bill said all that was right he credits to her and all that was bad he takes responsibility for. So what does this mean? Was she co-president? If so shouldn't the two term limit apply here? She had her chance.

It's time for voters to wake up and see that all our so-called "experienced" politicians have contributed to the mess we're in. It's time we put our trust in someone who has more years of real life experience than political experience. Real life experiences enhances a person's judgement and ability to see and relate to the real problems faced by Americans. The more politically experienced you are, the better you are at wheeling and dealing, lying and cheating at the expense of the American voters.

We need someone who hasn't been tainted by being in politics for a long time. We need Obama.

mathew cooley, i could have written your post.

I too, feel like i've been taking "crazy pills" when i read that other dems think Hillary is the most electable.

The national polls just don't back that claim up!

Hillary's negatives are through the roof!

IF DEMS NOMINATE HILLARY, THEY'LL BE REPEATING THE MISTAKES OF 2004, AND WILL LOSE 2008, TOO.

C'mon people! Use your heads!

'(AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel.

The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed.

The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials'

of course, this was in 2005, after which such data stopped being collected.

bsimon: My 11:42 AM answered your 11:42 AM question. There are a lot of things coming out that stress only negative things about Hillary. Yes, I did read this piece by CC, and as you point out it is on the negative side. I have no problem with "FACTS" being reported, but the "Spin" element, I can do without.

Electability? Pu-lease! Hillary's got more baggage than her ever-expanding butt. (The only time she shifts gears is to turn her massive bottom around.) If relatively benign Kerry could be slimmed outta' the presidency based on ONE bogus issue, think what the slimsters are gonna' do with ALL of Hillary's stuff: the Arkansas connections including the mysterious and covered up walking suicide (from White house to distant park) of AK buddy Vince Foster, Tammy Wynette insult to every red-state cookie baker, mega buck largess from the Pharma/Med lobbyists (more'n any other candidate -- which is curious for someone who, in alleged good faith, piggybacked on Ted Kennedy's health care proposals and continues to call them her own), head in the ground politico while hubbie had his head in some other aperture, Lieberman-like votes on the charnel house in Iraq, ad nauseum. The Dems know all of this (and more) and that the Repugs are gonna' go after Hillary like a gleefully mad proctologist with an awl. Electable? Monica would be more electable.

" It also didn't hurt Harold Ford significantly."

HArlod ford selling out party is waht hurt him. He and clinton are peas in a pod. Most of my attacks on modertes apply to him as well. Attacking liberals as crazies, trying to marginalize his base. Then going to Fox to propogate agaisnt teh democrats, imo. He should put an R next to his name and get it over with.

And to submit to racism empowers racism. Racism must be confronted and shown for what it is. I don;t believe america is a fascist racist nation. MAy have been at one time. Again, the youth are not as scared or as dumb as our forfathers. We do not limit ourselves behind the same imaginary fencses. We are all americans. those that woudl divide us for personal gain need to be pointed out for what they are. Lying propogandists for profit. RAcism and sexism is not something that we say "It is a way of live, live with it."

this is america. Real patriots taht believe what this country was founded for will combat you. To say the gop is going to win because america is racist, kind of shows the gop's face doesn't it?

Second, the ticking time bomb scenerio is ridiculous. Unless you KNOW the person has intelligence AND you know there's an imminent threat, the entire hypo collapses. The idea that you are sure about those two things, but can't get the information out of the prisoner through any method other than torture is even more unlikely. You might as well ask whether we should nuke Atlanta, for example, to preclude the IMMINENT spreading of an extremely infectious disease that otherwise be stopped. The entire question is too absurd to even entertain.

"

wow colin. On point. We can live in hypothetical land forever. What matters is the laws and the enforcement of said laws, or lack there of.

sgia - Vote for whoever you want, but your arguments don't hold much water. It's not wise to rely on the youthvote, but the fact that Kerry won that demographic group by a large margin -- and that they voted by 20% more than in 2000 --kept him close when he otherwise wouldn't have been. The fact that Obama may be able to build off of that increased voting trend, even at the margins, is a plus. Also, the idea that young people vote just like their parents is patently false. That demographic groups' parents went for Bush by a substantial margin. The youthvote was strongly Democratic in both '04 and '06.

As far as racism goes, of course it's alive and well. It also didn't hurt Harold Ford significantly. In point of fact, unlike in the past (See Gov Wilder in Virginia and the former Mayor of LA who ran for Governor in California, can't remember the name)Ford's final election numbers were better than the last polling numbers. So the number of folks secretly unwilling to vote for a black candidate appears to be diminishing. Of course Obama's race will be an issue, but in 2007 it seems unlikely to be a determinative issue.

Finally, most GE polls show any of the top three Democrats beating any of the top GOP candidates. It's early and I certainly expect a close race regardless of who is nominated, but the idea that Democrats are somehow sabotaging their chances b/c of their candidates is just silly and not supported by an evidence.

' It would not continue to be used for centuries (or in our case decades) if there was no effectiveness to it.' you might say the same about sadism, mightn't you? and they might just be the very same thing.

'Anybody who says they would sacrifice millons of americans over this issue has to be morally corrupt to the core. They want evil to win,'

Are you a small child, bhooms? Because you talk like one. First of all this is an absured, non existent TV scenario. Second,Thhis country has become so Orwelllian, so topsy turvy that you can say that anyone who OPPOSES, sick, sadistic [and often sexual] torture is morally corrupt? Torture is evil, bhoomes, and evil is winning. It's won you over already-- you just surrendered without a fight.

LOL babbling brooks has taken to calling me Phoebe? That's pretty funny.

Hey brooks: here's what I think you are. Just combine the first letters of each capitalized word:

The Worst poster of All Time.

JKrishnamurti: What makes you think I'm a republican? I just call 'em like I see 'em. The youth you speak of don't vote. And when they do they vote like their parents. Sexism? It's no doubt a factor, but there's much more involved when it comes to Hillary. For whatever reason, too many simply don't like her. Racism? Speaking of 2006, look at Harold Ford in Tennessee. Those who believe racism is not a factor in this country have not looked very closely at the south, the northern tier, or the upper midwest. Like I said earlier, the Democrats don't appear to want it.

What is the problem !!! A "VOTER" has the responsibility to closely examine every candidate and select one which, hopefully, will properly & truthfully reflect what the voter believes in. There are only a few choices in a primary, but in the general election voters only have to examine two main candidates. The should exclude all the blogs, hearsay, hype, competitors commercials, interest groups, and other garbage they incounter during the election process. Sounds too simple? Many do not do this, unfortunately. I vote for the candidate which most closely reflects my philosophy and beliefs - very simple!!! Monty Ousley Weddell - Texas

Dave and vbhoomes -- you both seem SURE that torture is effective. Apparently b/c we've engaged in it. That seems to me to be rather circular logic. With the exception of the CIA operative who recently spoke out, I'm unaware of any expert stating that waterboarding, for example, has proven effective at all -- let alone MORE effective than traditional "soft" interrogation techniques. Given that these methods have been around for hundreds of years, I'm going to need to see some evidence before believing this administration's bald assertion that it works.

Second, the ticking time bomb scenerio is ridiculous. Unless you KNOW the person has intelligence AND you know there's an imminent threat, the entire hypo collapses. The idea that you are sure about those two things, but can't get the information out of the prisoner through any method other than torture is even more unlikely. You might as well ask whether we should nuke Atlanta, for example, to preclude the IMMINENT spreading of an extremely infectious disease that otherwise be stopped. The entire question is too absurd to even entertain.

Finally, even assuming that torture is effective it remains wrong and something we shouldn't engage in. Ronald Reagan, the exulted liberal, spoke eloquently about the importance of the United States being the shining city on the hill. We don't engage in immoral behavior both b/c it's wrong AND b/c doing so erodes our ability to act with moral force when dealing with the rest of the world. That is not an insignificant thing, as Reagan -- and that other liberal, John McCain -- seem to understand.

lylepink writes
"The "Electability" issue is something the Repubs are playing up "Big Time""

Lyle, reread Chris's post. He discusses a Clinton campaign press release that promotes poll results showing Dem primary voters 'believing' that HRC is the 'most electable'. Are you arguing that the Clinton campaign is made up of Republicans?

What is very telling, is the campaign is promoting this one poll that supports their case, while ignoring all the polls that show other Dem candidates doing better against all the GOP frontrunners than HRC. Or is it your argument that all those other polls are the work of Repub operatives skewing the data?

King3: I get the opposite. Every Repub I know tells me they don't think they can beat Hillary in 08. Every Dem tells me they will vote for Hillary WHEN she is the nominee in 2008. The "FEAR" Factor is coming from Dems that favor another candidate in the Dem primary/caucus, and the Repubs in The General Election.

oops. Wrong quote.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?""

"who says they would sacrifice millons of americans over this issue has to be morally corrupt to the core"

fROM THE TOPIC LAST WEEK. Romney says "attacks on religon go to far."

Funny to me. A barrel of monkeys. To me none of them are christians, IMO. Huck has a point, as I said last week. Romney can't court the "religous", while hiding from religous talk. He can't have his cake and eat it too. I wish they would leave religon out. But if we are going to get in there, at least let us talk for real. Tip toing and pus*y footing aroudn solves nothing. Let's have real dialogue without fear or "offense".

Huckabee is trying to eliminate Romney once and for all with this. Good luck huck. When asked if he would bomb iran, Romney replied "Ill have to ask the lawyers". That kind of thinking should scare teh heck out of americans.

Dave, you think that torture is used because it's effective? Torture has been used for centuries because it's a way to punish the enemy. You think the Spanish Inquisition was about getting useful intelligence? How about Nazi interrogations?

vbhoomes, your scenario is ridiculous for many number of reasons, some of which have already been named. Here's another: It's never happened. (At least, not in the real world, where most of us live. Visit some time!) It certainly wasn't the case for the many Gitmo detainees who have been tortured so far. You've tried your best to justify torture in a "time bomb" scenario, but that doesn't justify torture in other situations. Do you believe that torture should be legal in all situations, or only in the one nearly-impossible scenario you identified?

"who says they would sacrifice millons of americans over this issue has to be morally corrupt to the core

Again, you rliving in 24 land. What "millions" of americans are threatened? your watching for of listening to rush to much. The terrorists couldn't take over NY, LA or chicago. Much less AMERICA. Your fear blinds you. Fear doesn't exist. It is merly a sensor in your head to "watch out". If you are in a constant state of fear you are paranoid.

"The result of nominating either will be a Republican in the White House for four or eight more years.

Posted by: sgia | December 12, 2007 11:18 AM

"

Right. Where you sleeping through the 06 elections? Things have gotten far worse. What has the gop done right in a decade? Good luck. your in for a rude awakening. your betting on racism or sexism. The year is 2007. The youth of america are smarter than their fathers and grandfathers. To make it we need to work together agian.

Teh gop has been dividing us for 20 years now. Is that good for america? Republcains seem to think so. Thsi is why your in for a rude awakening. You don't know who the rest of america, and the world see you p[eople. You surrord yourselves with like minded people and hide your heads in the sand.

The gop is done for a generation. If you want to blame someone, blame your leaders. Or look in the mirror for electing them. But make no mistake. The gop is done. The sooner you gop'ers realize the better it will be for you rmental health. :)

"POLL: HILLARY LOSES LEAD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE..."

To obama. When it's on, it's on. They say.

COLIN: It is not a false choice, Sure you would start with being a nice guy and other tactics First, but I would hope the President would employ every method neccessary to get info to save, YES EVEN NY YORK City. Anybody who says they would sacrifice millons of americans over this issue has to be morally corrupt to the core. They want evil to win. How Sad. Of course if it thier life, I'm sure they would be all for waterboarding and out & out torture. Why is it so hard to be honest with yourselves?

_Colin,
Torture can be effective. Most if not all of those "experts" are from or working under the CIA. None of those people are going to come out and say publically "Hey, that waterboarding is extraordinarily effective and will make you talk in less than a minute". It's much better for our operatives if the story is torture is not effective. It would not continue to be used for centuries (or in our case decades) if there was no effectiveness to it. It may not be the MOST effective method but then again, it may be. If it is not part of your options, then it definitely will not be effective.

The Democrats are screwing up a wet dream. While the Republicans are trying to hand them the presidency, they're doing all they can to not take it. If they nominate Clinton or Obama, it'll be a repeat of the McGovern debacle. Though both candidates are extremely popular with segments of their party, neither is electable for very obvious reasons. The result of nominating either will be a Republican in the White House for four or eight more years.

This poll released by Zogby International on Monday, November 26, 2007, shows definitively that Senator Barack Obama is the most electable Democrat running for president in 2008. Obama is soundly beating all 5 major Republican candidates, while Clinton is loosing to all 5:


Zogby:

Clinton 38%
McCain 42%

Clinton 40%
Giuliani 43%

Clinton 40%
Romney 43%

Clinton 39%
Huckabee 44%

Clinton 40%
Thompson 44%

HOWEVER:

Obama 45%
McCain 38%

Obama 46%
Giuliani 41%

Obama 46%
Romney 40%

Obama 46%
Huckabee 40%

Obama 47%
Thompson 40%

Texas Republican for Obama!!

'Okay, Claudia & Blarg: Let'say you are right and a nuke his shipped through one our ports and we have someone at Gitmo'

there are billions of people in the world, many of which are capapble of hating the US, and a few hundred at Gitmo. What are the odds of one of them being the right guy? If they are at Gitmo, then obviously they have not been in recent contact with anyone who might be planning something, have they?

You've been reading too many comic books, bhoomes. The world is a little more complex than that.

On top of that vbhoomes . Everyone knows that the tortuee will say anything to make the pain stop. He will tell you his name is george washington if youtwist him arm enough. so you think you may save a person. What about the soldiers that lose their lives because of the false intel torture creates? Do you care about the troops?

Torture creates false intel. Any intelligent person would conced to this. Think about it, rather than doing what BIll O'Rielly tells you.

dave: That is the most sensible thing I have seen today. I was typing and did not see it.

I will answer vbhoomes. No. You do not toture. Even if it's my two sons. Does that mean I love them less? Can you be an american and a father at the same time? Yes.

We can give peopel the chair for failing to cut their grass. I bet people would cut their grass like crazy. Doesn't make it right, or legal. Is this nazi america?

vbhoomes -- The entire premise of your hypo is flawed. One, you assume that we already know very specific information that we merely need to confirm AND that we are sure that the prisoner can confirm it. Query what the likelihood of that happening is.

Second, you assume that torture would be (1) effective at all, despite most experts arguing to the contrary; and (2) that in fact it would be the MOST effective method of getting the information. Since there is zero evidence to support either proposition, the entire hypo is invalid. You might as well ask me whether I would kill my own family to save the entire country. Both are false choices that have nothing to do with reality. Other than that though, great question!

Okay, Claudia & Blarg: Let'say you are right and a nuke his shipped through one our ports and we have someone at Gitmo we beieve has intelligience on what port city in went through, What city its destined for and when its scheduled to go off. You are telling me you will not waterboard someone to save millions of lives, maybe even yours. Spare me your Moral Superiority. Its totally fake and you cannot even be honest with yourself.

bsimon: Because they don't like the core values of the Republican Party.

Just because you're a member of a party doesn't mean that you agree with everything that party stands for. I can think of many scenarios in which a voter might be a registered Republican, and favor a Republican candidate, but not agree with the party as a whole. (For instance, Ron Paul fanatics.) I don't find it contradictory at all.

But the real issue is that it was a silly question. If I ask you which candidate reflects the core values of the Republican Party, but I don't know what you think those core values are, your answer lacks context. And I don't think that either party really has strong core values. The standard Republican platform contains policy positions that aren't really related. Same with the Democrats. Each party defines itself partially in opposition to the other, and by building up coalitions of different groups who don't necessarily have a reason to agree.

A small party can have strong core values. A party that represents approximately half of the electorate is a grab-bag of policy positions, with some vague sentiment holding it together. The core values question is interesting, but not necessarily meaningful.

lylepink, please explain how this help Republicans? Every single Democrat I know says the same thing...she would not beat a Republican. "The "Electability" issue is something the Repubs are playing up "Big Time", and from what I have seen over a period of time, a lot of Repubs are pretending to be Dems by this "I will never vote for Hillary" junk that appears to be showing up more and more as they become even more "Fearful" that Hillary will indeed be the nominee, and they know they can't beat her in 2008."

YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!!!! Yet no hillary supporter will touch this commnet with a 10 foot pole. "Over half the country says they WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. They say that now. For the dem's to put her forward is to throw the election."

" was waiting to find someone that made at least a little bit of sense about Hillary, hasn't happened yet. I have found other blogs and I think [not sure] some of you are on them, but using different names.

Go elsewhere then pink. The goal is not to make everyone exactly like you. That is why I call a republican. The goal is to compromise as a nation and come together. Not rip each other apart because we are not exactly the same. That is the gop game, clones borg robots. The left does not conform this way pink.

Give a good arguement, maybe you will get a couple voters. Or whine and complain. You show that clinton is a republcain. She walks talks acts and votes like her. Her supports are gop discontent with their cult. The american people reject her, pink. She needs to do whats best for the country and step down. Rather than doing what's best for only herself.

No Republican I knbow would vote for Clinton. Maybe all you Hillary defenders should start with the disclaimer "Hillary Clinton is found to be most electable among Democrats only, completely ignoring Republican votes" They matter you know....and they sure as hell are not voting for Clinton.

Over half the country says they WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. They say that now. For the dem's to put her forward is to throw the election.

I am a little surprised the "Hate Hillary" crowd is not quite as intense as usual. I did not comment sooner because I was waiting to find someone that made at least a little bit of sense about Hillary, hasn't happened yet. I have found other blogs and I think [not sure] some of you are on them, but using different names. I still seem to be the strongest Hillary supporter on this one. The polls change on a daily basis, and I still think the folks in Iowa may yet come out and support Hillary. I still doubt she will win there due to the loss of support for Edwards and where these folks will go if they do indeed participate. The "Electability" issue is something the Repubs are playing up "Big Time", and from what I have seen over a period of time, a lot of Repubs are pretending to be Dems by this "I will never vote for Hillary" junk that appears to be showing up more and more as they become even more "Fearful" that Hillary will indeed be the nominee, and they know they can't beat her in 2008.

Anyone, ANYONE who likes Obama liked him way before Oprah. did you forget to mention Babs helping CLinton.....please gimme a break with your ignorance. every poll I've seen which includes the other half of the nation (Republicans) show Hillary as unelectable. What? Do you primary fools think you decide? HAHAHAHA

"It's a fascinating paradox that seems to suggest that Democrats believe Clinton is their strongest nominee even if they don't personally like her all that much."

This is explained in that a large number of people just don't like her based on years of experiencing her and her husband - she could hold any policy position and even if people agreed with that position they still would not like her as a person. However, a large number of people do happen to agree with her policy positions as they are centrist (since 1994 anyways) and have proven to be somewhat politically successful for her and her husband. Much to Mibrooks chagrin, people like the low costs and big selections and good economy that free trade agreements and outsourcing bring. If they didn't, Walmart would not be the world's biggest retailer. There are many that don't really care that she listens to big business. Many people think that big business provides value to our lives. Many don't mind her votes on foreign policy (I actually like most of them). The fact of the matter is she is a very slightly left of center candidate that holds positions that most people in the country (but apparently not on this blog) find acceptable. But they still detest her as a person.

The other fly in the ointment is that people don't elect politicians, especially presidents, only on policy positions. There is something to be said for being a candidate that people are comfortable with and are willing to trust their judgement. A lot of this is derided as "popularity" but I think it more goes to the "character" issue. The problem with polling is that it does not do a good job of determining which is more important for people - character or policy - and where the tipping point is for casting a vote or not casting a vote, especially since that tipping point varies from person to person.

Other interesting polling data is out today, as covered in the Wash Post. I found this excerpt interesting:

"[T]he Republican electorate appears more fragmented now than at any previous point in the race. Asked which candidate best reflects the core values of the Republican Party, 18 percent said McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee were each cited by 16 percent, 14 percent picked Romney, and 13 percent named Thompson. As if to punctuate the confusion, 16 percent said they had no opinion."

Giuliani is leading the national polls, though his support is falling. Romney & Huckabee are both gaining support. McCain brings up 4th or 5th place. So riddle me this: why do the same people who rate McCain as best reflecting the core values of the party (granted, by a minimal amount), support other candidates for the nomination?

Cinton (GOp) "People fear what they don't understand. HAte what they can't conquer. Guess it's just the fury in man."

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes."

Nas

These polls must only be asking Democrats. Republcan vote too people, and NOT for Hillary Clinton. Time to do what is BEST for our country and stop the retalitory games. Say NO to Hillary in 08

This is TOTAL lies. There is NO evidence or statitics showing Hillary Clinton leading OR being more electable. All other polls fly in the face of such nonsense. No Democrat I know will vote for here because she will not beat ANY of the GOP candidates. I smell a rat....

I'm sorry, where is the outrage about Jewish kids who said 'Happy Hanukah' to folks on the subway and got beaten for it? I'm sure if it were Christians who got beaten for saying "merry Christmas' [which I've never heard of happening in this country] there would be a HUGE ourpouring of rage and bloviating from one coast to the next about the terrible state this country is in. But Jews? One AP wire story that not a single major outlet picked up, and not a word from folks by Bill O'Reilly.

And you knew this had to happen. This is what always happens when you inject relgion into politics -- religious warfare:

'In an interview this morning on NBC, Mitt Romney responded to Mike Huckabee's comment about Mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Romney declined to address the specifics of Mormon theology, saying that leaders at the LDS Church have already gone over it. "But I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far," He said. "It's just not the American way, and I think people will reject that."

This is probably a sign that the race between them isn't about to get any cleaner anytime soon, and we'll be hearing more about religious differences in the next few weeks whether Romney likes it or not.'

Quite the opposite is true. Hillary Clinton is the LEAST electabel Democrat to beart a Republican contender. I know many, MNAY Republicans who will vote for Obama or Edwards before they would vote for their own GOP or Hillary. I know many Democrats, including myself, who would vote for a Republican before I voted for her. She is bad for America, bad for politics, bad for unity, and bad for the future. She is just more of the same...Bush III. Please....no more Clinton's or Bush's

It is very puzzling that Hillary is seen as the most electable candidate despite her high negatives and despite the fact that in most head-to-head polls, Obama and Edwards do better against the Repubs than she does. It defies logic--just as I believe Kerry wasn't the most electable in 2004. If you really want to go by who is the most electable, it would probably be Joe Biden, but clearly the media has ruled him out.

But yeah, people have this notion that she's the most electable and as they see polls showing that they think that, they're going to keep on thinking that.

USMC Mike -- Once again, your maturity is impressive. So much easier to vilify the "opposition" than to actually THINK about an issue...

One, Ron Suskind is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and his account is based upon multiple sources who were also at the interrogation in question. You should read his book on the topic. You might learn something.

Two, *your* source says in the interview he gave that even if waterboarding is accurate we shouldn't do it. Because we're the United States of America. You skipped that part in your original post.

Three, you never answered how torturing folks fits in with your religious beliefs. Pretty telling that you don't even try to justify this BS in moral terms.

Four, the "you wouldn't save your family" line is patently ridiculous and a typical right wing straw man argument. There is zero evidence that this stuff works better than soft interrogation methods. Prove to me that it does -- indeed, that it's the only option available -- and we can discuss your hypothetical. Otherwise, your scenario is just silly.

Finally, No I wasn't against waterboarding in 2002. Because at that time I assumed that the United States didn't torture people. Apparently I gave this administration too much credit. There is nothing political about opposing torture Mike. Again, to the extent Pelosi or any other 'D' didn't they were inexcusably wrong.

Thank you Blarg -- we should all celebrate the courage and characterer of the Nazis, the Viet Cong, Saddam Hussein, and the glory of the Spanish Inquisition! You have to give those folks extra points for creativity, too...they invented waterboarding.

Here's a little something to demonstrate how much even Republicans love torture and your party's current policies:

'Polls show the public holds congressional Republicans in low esteem. Boehner's effort to craft a new agenda for Republicans remains under wraps. And in the minority leader's own words, their fundraising "sucks."

"Now the money sucks for two reasons," Boehner said in a Politico interview. "People are mad at the president; they are mad at the party. And then [there is] this whole immigration fight. People just turned off the spigot."

Boehner has undertaken a study, consulting corporate image experts, to "re-brand" the party. But so far, no big ideas have emerged.'

LOL -- your party is out of ideas. Looking everywhere, but can't find a single one--so they've 'undertaken a study' consulting 'image experts' to tell you how to think. maybe they'll tell you to wear earth tones...

Exactly, vbhoomes! Democrats don't have the moral courage to support torture. Instead they take the easy but morally reprehensible route of opposing torture. It's so difficult to endorse drowning, beating, or electrocuting helpless prisoners. Only people of the highest character are willing to stand up and say that they oppose the Geneva Convention. That's why I respect the Viet Cong; they had the courage to stand up for their beliefs and torture John McCain. (McCain is a coward, of course, because he refuses to admit that he supports torture.)

On Friday, Four Jewish subway riders who wished other people Happy Hanukkah were pelted with anti-Semitic remarks before being beaten, New York police and prosecutors said. '

Oh look, it's the War on Christmas.

'Most Americans support water-boarding and anything else if it keeps our cities from being Nuked.'

One has nothing to do with the other, bhoomes. The way to keep our cities from being 'nuked' is to tighten our borders and ports -- which was supposed to happen, but the funding was cut by your president. It is so very, very simple to smuggle a bomb in a shipping container, which won't get inspected. It could come from anywhere -- we have so many more enemies than friends in the world now. We can't waterboard the entire world, now, can we? Get real.

So very simple I'm quite surprised it hasn't happened yet. But it will. And as for insulting people, if they attack me I will fight back.

Claudia/Drindl: Is it possible for you to make your point of view without insulting someone? Dems as usual are on ther wrong side of National Security, Most Americans support water-boarding and anything else if it keeps our cities from being Nuked. So do you left wing dems, you just do not have the moral courage to admit to others because your afraid of what people may think of you.

Milbrooks27: "Clinton can catterwall all she wants about those issues, but when voters can directly BLAME her for not being able to feed their children or pay the rent, I figure those issues are pretty much toast." December 11, 2007 11:49 PM

Democrats are not responsible for the current economic problems. When Bush was elected, the economy was in good shape, budget was balanced, and there was a surplus in the treasury. Now, with a Republican oil greedy war hungry president, the deficit has doubled. It has ruined our standing in the world, not just socially but economically, and it has quadrupled the cost of fuel, which also hurts our economy.

Imagine what benefits we would have reaped if we had taken the war money and invested it into finding alternative energy sources. We would have given the economy a better boost than that we received from the war. We would have made progress toward energy independence, and we might have helped the environment at the same time. We could have developed technology that the rest of the word could use. We would not have enflamed the Middle East with our imperial invasion.

How is Clinton to blame for this mess? Granted, she has supported the war, and beat the drums pretty hard, and she didn't read the intelligence, then she voted for war with Iran when she should have known that Bush doctors intelligence. Ok. She played a role. But, it is Bush's war. His oil company cronies pushed for it. They doctored the intelligence.

There is another candidate that saw through the ploy, twice, and objected to the war from the beginning, not continue the Bush policy.

Go Obama!

Check out this great Mitchel political cartoon "The Queen of Mean":

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/12/10/mitchell/index.html

Just one more thing--

'What does your daughter say about you?'

Just so you know, my daughter [who actually exists] says that I am a great mom and that she appreciates everything i've taught her. I doubt you'll be as lucky.

'COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa -- Mike Huckabee, under fire for some of his immigration stands while governor of Arkansas, picked up an endorsement in Council Bluffs, Iowa, from the ultimate illegal immigration opponent: Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, the group that has roamed the border for the last several years operating effectively as an independent border patrol.

President Bush called the group "vigilantes" two years ago. But Huckabee seemed eager to announce the endorsement, as it came on a day when former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney started running an ad that slams Huckabee for backing a provision that would have allowed the children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition in Arkansas. '

Huckabee moves into Full Demagogue Mode...so much for integrity. LOL

bluejeanboomer:

Thanks for asking rather than repeating.

Yes, it is true that Obama's middle name is Hussein. He was named after his father. Obama is a Christian.

You might find emails, blogs, and posts circulating around the web on this. They are a hateful smear tactic. While Hillary has recently fired employees who propagate this garbage, at one time her campaign participated in spreading it. (see Insight, 16 January 2007, "Hillary's Team Has Questions About Obama's Muslim Background)

A good place to find the facts that counter the smear is at:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

dyck21005 is most likely a Hillary campaign worker. There are many out there trolling the news sites and copy/pasting HRC talking points all over the place. They are pretty easy to spot. There posts sound and look frantic and desperate -- alot of caps and exclamation points. More evidence Hillary's camp is about to implode.

'What say you('r extreme right-wing, anti-American, unverifiable, online sources)?'

First, let me say I am so thrilled I will never have to meet you -- you are a sick man. You obssess constantly about violence and torture -- do you get off on it? and you refuse to listen to anything resembling fact or reason. You simply-mindedly clling to some black and white notion of good vs. evil and in your world, might always makes right and anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is wrong. It's mindless sheep like you that get us into endless, pointless wars. It's all about your swaggering primitive notions of 'manliness' which apparently you think a little too much about.

Btw, the way, the fact that someone breaks and starts babbling phony and outlandish 'plots' after 35 seconds only proves to me that waterboarding IS torture. The average is 14 seconds. It is not 'simulated' drowning -- it is simply slow, controlled drowning. The US called it torture during WW2 and Japanese who used it on Americans were prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity. What's changed? Are you going to babble some drivel about how a few motley suicide bombers were worse than thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at our cities? Or the monoliths of Cold War Russia, or Stalin, or Hitler?
You have no sense of history or perspective, only ignorance and gullibililty.

I've already pointed out a great deal of VERIFIABLE information from numerous sources, about how torture does not provide ACCURATE information, which you chose to ignore.

I've no more time to waste talking to you, it's too tedious. So please address no further posts to me -- I really don't even want to know how your mind works--it's too depressing. From now on, I will scroll past your posts in order not to pollute my day.

Hillary Clinton is by far the riskiest Democrat candidate. He nomination will re-energize the depressed Republican base like nothing else and at the same time demoralize many Democrats. This woman is one of the most polarizing figures in this country. Are you Hillary-lovers crazy? Do you want the Republicans to have another 8 years in the WH?

I know some have thought that dyck21005 was a Clinton campaign plant. Looking at his/her use of capital letters and misspellings, much like the recent deputy campaign director's email asking for dirt on OHB, it seems to be true!! There is so much anti-HRC feedback on this and so many other blogs that it seems surprising to me that anyone would see her as electable or even fit to run.

brooks, you said last night that you believe we are entering into a recession "that will make pa[s]t recessions look downright tame"

May I ask why you believe this is the case? After all, there's no doubt that recessions, the low end of the business cycle, have done nothing but become more shallow over the last 6 decades (since the end of WWII, and the accompanying boom in industrialization and labor force).

The one we had in '01-02 was about as mild as it gets, and that one was driven by the double whammy of NASDAQ/tech stock collapse (far greater than today's housing collapse) and a terrorist attack that changed the game.

CLINTON IS THE MOST ELECTABLE! READ! you think Smart americans will vote for obama winphrey because a talk show host says so? Thats just crazy and it will not happen.
Our country was better off under a Clinton presidency, say whay you will she is the strongest person, she has survived all the bogus personal attacks and continues to lead the pack of losers like oprahs boy... Hey Oprah! WE ARE SICK OF THE RACE ISSUE!its peopel kiek you asnd obama that keep it going to overshdow his lack of experience and leadership! SHAME ON YOU OPRAH

Colin,

Thanks for biting.

First, I am glad I am not related to you, in any way. Because those related to me know that I would waterboard the person who kidnapped them in order to save their lives. Aparently, you would not.

Second, it is just as unfair for you to point to my religion as a contradiction to "torture", as it would be for me to tell you it is un-Christian for you to NOT save countless innocents, at the hands of the guilty. I'm not sure if you have ever claimed to be Christian though. I hope I didn't offend you by assuming that you might be -- Merry Christmas and all.

Third, isn't it convenient that your current "leader", Nansy Pelosi, was one of the 4 who didn't think waterboarding was far enough, but now suddenly is opposed to it? It's obviously political. Don't characterize it as "didn't oppose it enough". It's more accurate to say, "couldn't support it more", Colin. For someone who likes to be fair, you shouldn't have to rely on mischaracterizations to make your point.

Forth, John McCain is a singular example. You can give the starting lineup of a football team when being tortured, in the middle of the jungle, before Google, Colin. Some of what he says simply is no longer true, and we both know it. There are countless other examples of first-hand torturees who contradict his opinion. But you only have selective vision aparently.

Fifth, regarding accuracy. We spy around the world, and we get a lot of bad info. Does that mean we should quit spying? As a student I studied for exams, but often times studied the wrong thing. Does that mean I should have quit studying? If we get 99% bad info, it's worth it for the 1% - that's true in studying for a class, spying for the country, and obtaining knowledge from someone. Should we filter out the bad? Yes. Could we do better? Yes. But don't make an outrageous claim here Colin, that just because there is a possibility of bad intel that it's not worth it. If that's the case, never follow a lead, disband the police force, shut down the FBI and CIA.

Sixth, you are not the President. The President's primary obligation - the oath of office - before God - is to protect American lives. Period. You can play armchair quarterback all day long, but if you were charged with saving American lives, 35 seconds of waterboarding better not stand between you and your duty.

Finally, your source is a reporter. Seriously? Mine is an actual CIA guy who was there when it happened. No offense, but an agenda-driven reporter will NEVER be more credible in my eyes, or in most reasonable people's eyes, than an eye-witness. Your fancy quote only makes you look more desperate to find someone, anyone, who agrees with your point. So I guess my D-CIA man washes with your R-Torturee. Or maybe your R washes a long time ago, and my D is the only man left standing.

Did you ever answer my question -- were you banging the no-torture drums in 2002? Or are you and the rest of your (11% approval) party just playing politics?

My future daughter will never doubt that I will save her.

My Marines will never doubt that I will save them.

What does your daughter say about you?

And your country?

legan00 - I wasn't referring to you. Phoebe is LoudMouth. She is a reference librarian from Stirling, VA. You are another nominally Democratic voter who will likely be joining millions of your fellow citizens in the employment line in the near future. Come back then and tell us how much "choice" and "gay rights" matter to you. Clinton can catterwall all she wants about those issues, but when voters can directly BLAME her for not being able to feed their children or pay the rent, I figure those issues are pretty much toast.

As with most voters, conservative, liberal and moderate, I place the good of the country before any single issue. Clinton is a threat to our economy. Part of her "experience" she so much touts, she went to India and China where she advocated more outsourcing, more guest worker visas, more globalization. In case you haven't noticed, we are either in or heading into a recession that will make pat recessions look downright tame. JOBS and THE ECONOMY will be *THE* issues. Any campaign worth it' salt will hang Clinton's support of that around her neck like a dead fish. No other candidate running has so much hung their hat on that issue - not any of the Republican's and not any other Democrat. Couple that with the lengthy list of past (largely unresolved) scandals and she has nowhere to go but down, taking much of the Democratic Party down with her. Jobs and the economy and the survival of this country count more to me than choice or gay rights. In the scheme of things, they simply aren't on the radar when you are without a job. And millions of American's will be without jobs by November 2008....look for them to blame Clinton and the Washington insiders who support outsourcing regardless of party.

mibrooks27,

I live in New York City. Again, I don't love Hillary, but she's a Cicero, of sorts. She has a significant number of intelligent people behind her. This is politics. I wish it were different, but this is what we deserve. Most Americans are unremarkable, they deserve an unremarkable President. "Maybe it's the public that sucks. Yeah! The public sucks, f*ck hope."*
When more Americans begin to read books, this might change. Enough people in New York read books, that's why our state is governed more efficiently than the rest of the country. We set the tone. The rest of the country must play catch up. Assuredly, I say, local politics is the root of your problems. American society, on the whole, is devoid of civics, and ethics. I promise that it's not as bad here {New York City}, than the mainland. If you agree that America does not challenge you, I urge you to move here. I reiterate, the rest of the country ought to play catch up.

Eugene Debs '08

Phoebe! You're evidently off work and back to hysterically defending Clinton.

lee.justin.t - That's not all. She and Kennedy have added a provision to the immigration "reform" bills to remove all caps from H1-B visas. This when she owns a company that provides outsourcing and H1-B workers for U.S corporations. (At a time when 30% of our own engneers and programmers can't get work and when 90% of new hires are those H1-B workers!) Hasn't anyone looked into the conflict of interest here????

Outsourcing and those same guest workers are the very cause of our current economic mess - disappearing living wage jobs, the declining dollar, the trade imbalance, the fact that the international bond market switched from a dollar to a Euro peg, the looming inflation - when everything from toasters to kitchen ranges, even paint and wiring are produced offshore. Hillary Clinton IS the problem. She doesn't have a clue as to the mess she has created and only a complete moron would trust her to now switch and fix it.

babbling brooks, kindly stop calling yourself a liberal. it's embarrassing. no liberal on this planet would vote for some nut who would outlaw abortion and quarantine aids victims.

you become more of a joke each and every time you call yourself a liberal.

i'd love to know what some woman did to you.

The WaPo is running a series of profiles of the candidates. They have run four so far:
HRC, WMR, JRE, and FDT.

3 have been softballs. One is a gut job.

Interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801526_4.html?sid=ST2007120801758

sometimes i wonder if these ppl who are polled nationally are even paying attention.

GOSH IT'S SO FRUSTRATING!

for example, can someone please explain to me how HILLARY CLINTON who voted for this iraq war becomes the candidate who is best equipped to get us out safely and carefully?

why can't these potential voters be honest with themselves? they are lying if they honestly think hillary can unite this country and take it to a higher place. they are simply lying.

it's just mind boggling to me. we b***h and moan about not having leaders who actually care about their constituents not their legacy, who are honest not calculating, who are consistent not flip-floppers, who don't play the Washington game, and yet, when we get them right in front of our faces in obama or edwards or even biden, we do NOTHING about it.

if america cannot seize this moment to take our country in a new direction that they know we can have by electing obama specifically, then america deserves the same old politics.

muaddib_7 - Good for you! I hate for it to come to this, but we might just need to expose these cockroaches ourselves since the press appears so lame and ignorant that they wont. Ditto (in spades) for racist high school brats like Jeremy)....and "Phoebe" the librarian from Stirling, VA pretending here at times to be a man and tossing off insults and personal attacks. Don't you ever work Phoebe?

bluejeanboomer/Jeremy - You're managing to make people here a bit angry with your posts. Go away.

legan00
I am not alone in this decision. We are sick to death of choosing between "the lesser of two evils". And, actually, I would vote for McCain without any qualms whatsoever. I don't agree with him on virtually any issue but he is decent and honest and Clinton is, at best, duplicitous and mean and a creature of big corporations. I might even vote for Huckabee; likely would, in fact, in a race between him and Clinton. For all of his lunatic ideas on choice and gays, he IS honest and he IS concerned about outsourcing and jobs and that will be the deciding issue by the time the general election rolls around. I cannot imagine anything that would cause me to vote for Guliani or Romney; they are basically the same sort of evil hacks as is Clinton. I hope it doesn't come to any of this, however, and we get to vote for a genuine Democrat like Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich, Gore, almost anyone but Clinton. You see, in the end, ethics and the good of the country come first and that pretty much eliminates Clinton as it does people like Bush, Cheney, and anyone else in the pocket of big corporations or the insufferable twits of Wall Street. I am a liberal, but before that I am an American and a patriot.

Hi All. I did a reverse domain look-up of the folks who run: obamatruth.org, a website dedicated to smearing Mr. Obama. This is his personal information (I just called it and it works, he cussed me out actually):

Joseph J & Rebecca J Novak
532 Circle Ave
Forest Park, IL 60130-1931
(708) 366-0764

While I support free speech, I support the community's right not to tolerate offensive defamatory material that is repugnant to one's conscious. If he's wants to publish, God bless him, but we should at least let him know what we think of his trash.

FYI: I did a reverse IP look-up (using: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp) to get the address with whom www.obamatruth.org is registered. I then took that personal address and used whitepages.com to reverse locate his home phone number. I then called it to make sure it was the right guy. If you don't believe me, repeat these steps and you will land at the exact same place I did. I told him his webpage was disgusting and that he should be ashamed of himself, at which point he cussed me out and hung up. I think if enough people give him a call, he might rethink his digusting and shameful tirade. Best of luck!

Hi All. I did a reverse domain look-up of the folks who run: obamatruth.org, a website dedicated to smearing Mr. Obama. This is his personal information (I just called it and it works, he cussed me out actually):

Joseph J & Rebecca J Novak
532 Circle Ave
Forest Park, IL 60130-1931
(708) 366-0764

While I support free speech, I support the community's right not to tolerate offensive defamatory material that is repugnant to one's conscious. If he's wants to publish, God bless him, but we should at least let him know what we think of his trash.

FYI: I did a reverse IP look-up (using: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp) to get the address with whom www.obamatruth.org is registered. I then took that personal address and used whitepages.com to reverse locate his home phone number. I then called it to make sure it was the right guy. If you don't believe me, repeat these steps and you will land at the exact same place I did. I told him his webpage was disgusting and that he should be ashamed of himself, at which point he cussed me out and hung up. I think if enough people give him a call, he might rethink his digusting and shameful tirade. Best of luck!

The Democrats have such a wind at their back, yet they insist on running their slowest pony in HRC. If they lose in '08 they'll have nobody but themselves to blame.

Even HRC's friends call her a devious, conniving woman. Imagine what the GOP's negative ads will do to her.

Someone please tell me...is it true that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussian, and if so, is he a Muslim?
(not that this matters)

a bunch of idoits that would hound a winning lady no matter what a bunch of cry-babies you are

mibrooks27,

Many of us are familiar with your "pledge" to not vote for any Democratic candidate next year. You can qualify it all you want, but it's too Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller for me. At least Republicans admit they're Republicans. Come clean. Because frankly, it's a weak argument, and it's become trite. Trust me, I'm not keen on the idea of another Clinton presidency, but the Republican candidates are just an embarassment. And far worse for this country. Granted, Hillary Clinton is inauthentic, and annoying. She will probably raise taxes. But unless you make $250,000+ annually, this will have little impact on your income. I'm not worried. So don't be an apologist for the top 1% of income earners. Honestly, it's an obsequious, and unremarkable approach to politics. Rudy Guiliani is a frightening candidate. He is a candidate to fear. So let's debate candidates' merit, but table the closet Republican "pledge."
Thanks guys!

Eugene Debs '08

http://www.thehillaryblog.com/

Hillary is the issue of the next two years. This is going to be historic however it falls. If you want to keep up with her check thehillaryblog.com

It will continue to grow!

This is the area where Hillary can still win. At least she is a known commodity with a past that everyone has heard of. Might not get her high positive marks, but there won't be a rush to the negative side, either.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

vwcat writes:
"Desperation in Hillary is very ugly thing."

The thing is, HRC probably isn't that desperate yet.

The best motivation for the Republicans in 2008 to get their voters out is if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. The fact of the matter is that in the nineties the Republicans not only gained back Congress for the first time in DECADES, they also lost nine races for Governor for incumbent Democrats as well in their time. It is so disgusting that these people think they are most electable. The head-to-head matchup are where you are going to find your electability candidate, and that is Obama. He attracts not only Democrats, not only Independents, but REPUBLICANS as well to vote for him. I know so many Republican friends that say they won't pay much attention to the 2008 election unless HRC is the nominee. We can't let this happen!!!

The best motivation for the Republicans in 2008 to get their voters out is if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. The fact of the matter is that in the nineties the Republicans not only gained back Congress for the first time in DECADES, they also lost nine races for Governor for incumbent Democrats as well in their time. It is so disgusting that these people think they are most electable. The head-to-head matchup are where you are going to find your electability candidate, and that is Obama. He attracts not only Democrats, not only Independents, but REPUBLICANS as well to vote for him. I know so many Republican friends that say they won't pay much attention to the 2008 election unless HRC is the nominee. We can't let this happen!!!

USMC Mike: You know Mike, it's a shame when you post garbage like you did tonight b/c you're capable of more thoughtful - and less dogmatic - thinking.

First, there is significant disagreement regarding whether the TORTURE of Zubaydah produced actionable intelligence. Ron Suskind reported, in the One Percent Doctrine, that (1) Zubaydah was a minor player; (2) primarily b/c he was completely insane; and (3) that the intelligence the CIA got out of him was collected through soft interrogation methods after torture was ineffective. Oh, and GOP nominee John McCain - who knows a thing or two about torture - has repeatedly stated that torture is ineffective. Absent more compelling proof that this one individual's opinion, I'll trust the guy who was actually tortured. Here are some links for you.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/07/suskind/

"But Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind paints a more complicated picture of Zubaydah. In one of the most hotly discussed sections of his book "The One-Percent Doctrine," Suskind reveals that at least one top FBI analyst considered Zubaydah an "insane, certifiable, split personality" and that he was mainly responsible only for logistics like travel arrangements. According to Suskind's reporting, the interrogation methods used on Zubaydah -- waterboarding and sleep deprivation, among others -- only yielded information about plots that did not exist."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012675.php

Second, I already addressed (in a separate thread) your "argument" that torture is apparently acceptable b/c 4 democrats didn't protest loudly enough in 2002. To repeat, to the extent that did nothing their failure - and it was one if those reports are true - is inexcusable. Why? Because torture is WRONG irrespective of what political party is engaging in it and EVEN IF it was effective. The United States, the greatest country in the world, simply doesn't do that. It really ought to be that simple.

The fact you, as a purportedly devout Christian, along with your "moral values" party don't understand that is simply pathetic. That you argue that a contrary view is somehow "leftist" and "unpatriotic" is equally unforgivable.

PS. If you Haven't registered to vote in your area do so now or soon.

The question of elect-ability suggest that we should choose Hillary because she can win, not because she is the best person for the job. This is horse hockey! We at www.InsuranceTease.com have been promoting a single payer health care system from our inception, but we did not throw our support behind any candidate until we had taken the time to read their positions on a multitude of issues, including health care. As it happens, a co-author of the national single payer health reform bill, HR 676, is candidate Congressman Kucinich (D - OH). From his position on health care alone we were inclined to support him, but as we read and watched him speak on many issues we knew we could vote no other way. He may not win, but he is the only candidate who represents our true hope for this country. We would rather vote for what is right, and a person of integrity, rather than support someone because their elect-able. As time moves on we are seeing more and more support for Mr. Kucinich. I keep reading post from a vast network of un-affiliated voters who are not bing polled, who are not showing up in the official stats and who feel as we feel, that a front runner Republican or a front runner Democrat will only mean business as usual. So, the choice is clear - throw your vote away by voting for Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Guliani, etc, or vote for the one guy who actually says what he means and does what he says, Dennis Kucinich. Check out www.HOT.com

Most Electable? Chelsea Clinton is more electable than Hillary, atleast she had the guts to sue Monica for swallowing her brother.
Hillary just loved Bill all the more each time he cheated on her. Thats pretty sick and gutless if you ask me, anybody elses wife would cut of your nonads and divorce you faster than your head could spin.
What's she going to do if there is another 9/11, kiss the muslims to make up?

A new Iowa pooll has Huckabee at 39%, with every other Republican but Romney in single-digits: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/republicans-no-one-expects-romney-to.html

Most people who always vote democratic will hold their nose and vote for Hillary. The problem is that such utter lack of enthusiasm will cause people to stay home. Not everyone and not intentionally, but when work was hard and you have things to do at home, or with the kids, and the weather is bad, it will be that much easier for some to fail to make it to the polls.

I find it amusing that we care what Democratic primary voters think about who is electable. Their answers are in stark opposition to the polls that ask the population of likely voters at large who they would vote for. Democratic primary voters were absolutely confident that, even though they weren't crazy about Kerry, that other folks would want to vote for him. No one does the party any favors by neglecting a candidate they find inspiring to hold their nose & vote.

Chris

The media needs to be very careful in the next few weeks not to be manipulated by the dirt and lies that will invariably emanate from the Clinton campaign. You should all take a pledge not to use any emails coming from the Clinton campaign without yourself checking them out. Also it is time to set the record straight even if it is Bill who is making these outlandish statements:

" I was against the Iraq war from the begining.."

" I told Hilary to dump me..."

" Hillary is the most qualified of her generation..."

He is just a husband boosting his wife but the media needs to record that and not to pretend that these were truths

I am hoping that voters will go with heart rather than head. the head candidate is usually an unlikable candidate that depresses the turnout in their party and keeps any chance of crossovers away.
The heart candidate is the one that not only wins most of the party but, brings in new voters like crossovers.
It simply makes no sense to chose the head candidate since they always turn out to be the least electable - i.e. Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis.
With half the democrats saying they will not vote for HRC if the nominee and no chance of any crossover, how anyone can think her electable is beyond me.
Electable means the person is very appealing to a wide range of voters and that usually means a heart candidate.
Why democrats cannot understand this is a mystery.
And seeing that HRC is on heavy attack mode I would say she is worried over her chances. If that so called national poll was the norm she would not be attacking Obama so ruthlessly. Her actions speaks much louder than she thinks.
Desperation in Hillary is very ugly thing.

Iran -- let me get this straight.

If Bush believes intel (WMD's), he's a fool.

If Bush doesn't believe intel (Iran), he's a fool.

Nice.

Any comment on the iran intel USMC? Made you george bush lawyers look like fools and propogandists, did it?

What is you rparty of terrorist going to run on if they can't use fear? Their past? Good luck with that.

The gop is done. I hope you enjoy you rirrelevance halfd as much as I enjoyed mine. The differance is, the left will not sacrafice our brothers and sisters for political gain ( or to line the pockets of a few). our brothers are better than that USMC.

how would you like to be used for personal profi