femalenick January 10, 2008 08:42 PM,

I can't say why but I perceive Obama as the pragmatic moderate. I don't feel I can trust Hill.

The only Republican that I like is McCain.

lylepink January 10, 10:21 PM

Great answer.

I have those ladies in my "Opinion on Phoniness" file.

Fay,

I agree with you and with the irrepressible Camille.

Hill behaves as if she's controlling people's intelligence. We'll see...

Who cares? Try to move on ok? ITS OVER! In case you're not aware, Senator Obama went away with more delegates from NH than Hillary. He has since received endorsements from the Nevada Culinary Workers Union (over 60,000 members) Nevada Culinary Workers Union group's parent organization, UNITE HERE (460,000 food service, gaming and other workers nationwide) Nevada SEIU (Service Employees International Union, 17,500 members) and other SEIU endorsements from a total of five states; Virginia, Richmond Mayor, Douglas Wilder;Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (also pledged 660 Nevada Republicans);Virginia, US Representative, Bobby Scott;South Carolina, Former, two-time Democratic Party Chairman, Joe Erwin;South Carolina, Charleston Mayor, Joe Riley; California Congresswoman, Barbara Lee; California Congressman, George Miller; Georgia, Atlanta Mayor, Shirley Franklin and U.S.Senator, John Kerry!!!!! In addition, Obama grassroots supporters raised $8 million since January 1, 2008.

Camille,
Your assessment of Hillary is so spot on I've printed it out!
I've always felt uneasy about her.
Something about her swinging between bitter condescension, bordering-on-hysteria-tense personality and supposed tears really makes me nervous about a person who could have her finger on the button.
And yes, I am among those who 'the polls' claim are her most-likely supporters.
I think not.

bsimon, I don't think it has to be a particularly creative redefinition of what Republicans stand for--just go back to Eisenhower and resurrect his philosophies. You'd get a hell of a debate between him or even Barry Goldwater and George Bush and today's other leading Republicans.

When a politician endorses someone who loses the primary but goes on to win the general, they don't seem like that big a "loser" to me. Gregg endorsed Bush in 2000 who lost the NH primary, but won the presidency. It makes it seem that he doesn't have much influence over his own party members in his own state, but then it also looks like he knew how to pick a winner even when the winds in his own state were blowing a different direction.

Similarly, Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter endorsed Obama who lost their state's primary. But if he wins the nomination, and moreso the general election, do they look so foolish or impotent?

The point I was trying to make above, though I failed to state it explicitly, is that for McCain to have significant coattails, he would have to convince voters that he was ready & able to radically makeover the GOP after the Bush admin's somewhat creative interpretation of what is Republicanism.

pamela asks
"if McCain runs and wins, do you think he'd have coattails?"

That is an interesting question. We've never really discussed the GOP coattails here; usually the focus is on the prediction that HRC would negatively impact downticket Dems.

I think that for McCain to have a significant coattail effect he'd have to firstly win big on Feb 5 and go to St Paul with a mandate. This would give him more control over the party's platform, though he'd still have to pander to their various bases in order to ensure support in the general.

The more I think about it, the more clear it becomes that the way the GOP is fracturing makes it unlikely, after 1 minute of thinking, that there's really a leader for the GOP right now that could inspire GOP voters & really move the party - and the swing voters - with the kind of enthusiasm that would make for large ballot-wide gains. Maybe that will change by Nov, but I'd be surprised if it did.

Interesting post:
What was really sad about the women's vote in New Hampshire was that it was based on emotion and not logic.

It was emotions that lead us into the wrong war...And now it's logic wanting us to get out...

I am so very surprised and disappointed with some of the women's from New Hampshire , once again you allowed yourselves to be manipulated by emotions... So you voted for the Clintons to be are next President because Hillary cried? This is so sad so sad.... You felt like the men were ganging up on her and because she could not handled it and broke down in a manipulated cry.....You voted for her....So you don't take your country seriously....This is not only about "YOUR" emotions, this is about everything.....

• If your healthcare cost continued to rise, will you accept the cost and turned the other way when Hillary CRIES

• If are soldier are not pulled from this war in Iraq ---- will you continue to let them suffer and die when Hillary CRIES

• When your gas cost continued to rise - will you then say, the cost is worth it because Hillary CRIES

• When you lose your home because your mortgage has become difficult to pay---- will you be okay going homeless because Hillary CRIES

• When your income stays at a stand still, while every other cost rises ----- will you be okay with your family suffering because Hillary CRIES

• When you can't afford to send your child to college even though the Clintons sent their daughter to Oxford University in England (VERY EXPENSES)--- Will you then say, it's more important for their daughter to have the best education because Hillary CRIES

So tell me women of New Hampshire what do you think is going to happen if she makes it to the general election....Are you going to continue to vote on emotions.....What are you going to do if the Clintons win the presidency and once again we are bombarded with investigation after investigation and nothing in the country is getting done because her personality is so divisive that everyone roots against her.....

You essentially are giving up everything because you based your decision on emotion and not logic.....And will jeopardize us from taking our country back by doing so.....

The rest of the women of America rise up and be recognize..... Let show the rest of the world that this common thinking only lies in New Hampshire .....

Let show the rest of America that it is are families and welling being that comes first and not the sympathy will feel for Hillary because she CRIED.....

rfpiktor: I have those "Ladies" in my "Envy/Jealous" Factor group.

pamela, I have no idea. I'm an Obama supporter, but of all the GOP side, McCain is the one I could sort of live with IF there were a D Congress. All the polls I have seen have indicated that will be the case (D Congress), with the only difference being whether or not it would be filibuster-proof and/or able to overcome a presidential veto. As far as coattails go, I don't know what McCain's would be - I'm no expert on Republican politics, but it seems to me that it has only been in the past couple years that he has really begun to sing from the GOP songbook. Of course, I could be wrong.

bokonon, Just curious - if McCain runs and wins, do you think he'd have coattails? Would Congress become solidy D? Could they hold those seats in the House that they just barely won the last time? He's certainly not your typical Republican (which is why I could live w/ him) - maybe that's enough to depress the R vote enough so the Dems could pick up/retain a few seats, but the possibility of McCain coattails...

femalenick, you say "the most moderate Dem candidate" and while I do not disagree that she is moderate, I remember a website, actually connected with the post (I think, stress THINK this is it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/) which gave you the candidate most closely aligned with your answers to a short quiz. (The version I took had all the original 7 candidates - I think I took it last August.) At the end of the quiz, I matched up with - if I remember correctly - Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd, all of whose answers fit my 'profile' within about 5-8%.

My point being that I do not believe that the major candidates are really all that far apart - Edwards being the furthest to the left and Clinton the furthest to the right, I think, but all on the same field of play. For me, then, the decision comes down to who I am most comfortable with as a leader. For me it's Obama, for you it's Clinton... I am just glad that although supporters may disagree, the aspects on which we disagree are relatively small and have mostly to do with style, personality, approach etc. rather than substantive policy. Put another way, I know whom I would rather see win next November, but I also know that I could live with any of the 3 D frontrunners with varying degrees of comfort. (Or with Mike Bloomberg, if he runs, or maybe with McCain, as long as the Congress was solidly D.)

femalenick,

I think there are many of us who have reservations about Hillary for reasons other than that she is a moderate. There's a certain amount of Clinton fatigue (or Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton fatigue), a desire to move beyond the 51-49% partisanship we've seen in the past 8 years, and a sense that she would never have been elected senator from New York (a state she had little connection to), much less become a leading candidate for president, were it not for Bill.

But the last straw for me - and it's maybe a small thing - but she lost me with her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which racheted up the rhetoric about Iran. Other moderates - Biden, Webb, Dodd - voted against it, but not Hillary. I heard her explanation, but I can't understand how she could vote in a way that could give Bush any excuse for another middle eastern misadventure. My conclusion - voting yes was a strategy to look good in the general election.

Most politicians weigh votes and/or modify positions in order to win elections. My sense is that Hillary does this too much. Among other things, I want a president with integrity and the courage of his/her convictions.

It's really a shame, b/c I believe she has strong beliefs on domestic policies and isn't afraid to state those beliefs. Maybe it's just the fear that many Dems have about being labeled "weak" in terms of defense, terrorism, etc.

I haven't completely ruled out Hillary (I've already voted for her twice) but she'll need to do more to convince me.

"Paglia, Huffington, Dowd, Gail Collins, all top liberal opinionators are piling on Hill. Are they haters too?"

Yes...Hillary is hated by the extreme ends of each party because she is the most moderate Dem candidate. Note that McCain is hated by the same groups.

Their moderate positions are why I believe they will get their respective party's nominations. I believe there are more of us who are moderates than not.

spectator--i wanted to say, where is pogo when we need him - but there is a website...

http://www.pogopossum.com/

Oscar,

I think that she would, in fact, win in November. I think that her coattails are shorter than others in terms of Congressional elections, and I think that she would win in a very polarizing 51-49 election.

Lyle,

Paglia, Huffington, Dowd, Gail Collins, all top liberal opinionators are piling on Hill. Are they haters too?

"so us mostly moonbats -- not sure what else we is -- hate us all.
we, us moonbats hate us all. we hate ourselves? pity. wnder why zouk bothers hanging around then?"

claudia: Pogo was right. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

cam8
I, too can't help but believe that Clinton will not win an election. So for the sake of all of us I hope McCain wins their nomination just in case the diehard democrats make the same mistake with her that they did with Kerry in 2004

oops sorry for the multiple post.

boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 10, 2008 07:01 PM

then why in god's name do you hang around us? no one is stopping you if you want to hang around people closer to your creed(may i suggest a lunatic asylum)

hey if it makes you feel any better we were worried about you over the last couple of days. even loundon voter was putting pictures of you on milk cartons over the last couple of days. i mean we had civilized conversations, the horror that no one called us moonbats or libs(well marine mike did,but he's not posting every 30 seconds)

now tell us again how rudy is going to win florida. i need the laugh right now.

boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 10, 2008 07:01 PM

then why in god's name do you hang around us? no one is stopping you if you want to hang around people closer to your creed(may i suggest a lunatic asylum)

hey if it makes you feel any better we were worried about you over the last couple of days. even loundon voter was putting pictures of you on milk cartons over the last couple of days. i mean we had civilized conversations, the horror that no one called us moonbats or libs(well marine mike did,but he's not posting every 30 seconds)

now tell us again how rudy is going to win florida. i need the laugh right now.

boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 10, 2008 07:01 PM

then why in god's name do you hang around us? no one is stopping you if you want to hang around people closer to your creed(may i suggest a lunatic asylum)

hey if it makes you feel any better we were worried about you over the last couple of days. even loundon voter was putting pictures of you on milk cartons over the last couple of days. i mean we had civilized conversations, the horror that no one called us moonbats or libs(well marine mike did,but he's not posting every 30 seconds)

now tell us again how rudy is going to win florida. i need the laugh right now.

boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 10, 2008 07:01 PM

then why in god's name do you hang around us? no one is stopping you if you want to hang around people closer to your creed(may i suggest a lunatic asylum)

hey if it makes you feel any better we were worried about you over the last couple of days. even loundon voter was putting pictures of you on milk cartons over the last couple of days. i mean we had civilized conversations, the horror that no one called us moonbats or libs(well marine mike did,but he's not posting every 30 seconds)

now tell us again how rudy is going to win florida. i need the laugh right now.

Boko: The main "Hillary Haters" have come from you Obama supporters, and I have never degraded them in any manner. I think Obama has ZERO chance of winning in 08. Now if that pisses you off, I am fine with it, and will not change my opinion, that is their choice and I have always said "Support the candidate of your choice."

drindl, thanks for your kind words. I don't actually speak Klingon, but I do know how to do the Vulcan neck pinch.

Reason for a recount in NH?

There's a report of a provocative pattern with regard to the votes cast in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. As the article details, the discrepancies between polls and votes

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1495

.

I agree that the attacks on HRC have been unfair. The media and John Edwards went far too far in their criticism.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton, and I think that she would make a good POTUS. I just believe that her effectiveness would be in a "making the trains run on time" kind of leader. I also believe that she would beat most of the GOP candidates. But she would win a bloody, 51-49 election that would leave the country worse off than it is now in terms of partisanship.

What is needed is someone who can win the hearts of the people. Someone who isn't tainted by two decades of divisiveness. Senator Obama said it best (paraphrasing):

"We can't continue to send the same leaders into Washington over and over again and expect different results."

Nobody goes into this with the singular ability to change everything with a wave of his or her hand. But how many Republicans and Independents in D.C. (or in the general public) are ready and willing to work with or vote for Senator Clinton? That's my concern.

Zouk, I love America. That's why it pisses me off to see and hear ideas proposed that I think are unworthy of the ideas upon which it is supposed to be based. And yeah, on your scale, I'm probably a leftist. One of the things I love about America is that - at least in theory - it has room for my ideas AND yours.

oscarb71 06:57 PM,

Yeah, the comeback kid, stunner, the new voice of her own hoopla.

The media looked like clueless amateurs and keep on damaging their credibility.

'boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.'

oooh, boko watch out.-- your klingon words are meaningless and we do not hear them.

so us mostly moonbats -- not sure what else we is -- hate us all.
we, us moonbats hate us all. we hate ourselves? pity. wnder why zouk bothers hanging around then?

And on a side note, I am really getting tired of having to defend 'HRC. I don't like the woman and these posts are making my skin crawl so can we at least be fair to her?'

dave, I apologize for every snarky thing I ever said to you. that you recognize how exceptionally nasty these attacks on her have been is commendable. Whether you support her or not, it's been beyond the pale.

But I have never said she wouldn't try to create diplomatic channels -- quite the opposite. I'm sure she would.

boko - you are clearly an anti- american leftist fool, unworthy of dialogue. I keep forgetting that this site is populated by mostly moonbats who hate us all.

lyle, you have yet to answer my question. What good does it do Hillary to piss off the Democrats who support other candidates, in the event she is the nominee and will need their votes in November?

I am really irked at all the media hype about Clinton's "win" in NH. She and Obama both got the same number of delegates because the popular vote was so close and Obama received 3 compared to Clinton's 2 for the delegates that are not based on the vote. How does this mean that Clinton won so much? granted we don't have many delegates compared to other states but Obama comes out on top with them. Shame to all the media for giving Hilary much more time, exposure and credit than she deserves.

rfpiktor 06:42 PM

The Nevada Culinary endorsement and today's Kerry's confirms Obama was seen as the winner.

"And that means end the support of media pundits who resort to character assassinations and misrepresentations under the guise of analysis when what they're really doing is pushing their personal agenda.

Posted by: femalenick | January 10, 2008 06:17 PM

"

that's why I'm here. You misread me. I have free speech to a point, as o'reilly/rush/hanniity claims.

I only come to help balance out their propoganda. i should leave. I will leave. But not until I am sure what happened from 01-05 doesn't take hold again. I do my small part to combat them.

How fast we forget that a couple years ago people were getting banned and silenced if they opposed war or bush. don't forget that. The gop will keep those principles, as well as spying on american. Hillary will also.

So before we get all civil and high and mighty, remember what is at stake. To me if hillary of the gop wins we stay in this state. CAll that state what you will. "readiness" "war time" whatever you want to call the government taking our rights.

so am I wrong for wanting america back? At all costs and all price? Who will fight for america if not me and those like me? The gop? Ok moderates? No to both. So who will help me fight for this country? If I feel our rights are being stolen and our country replaced with something else? I'm I to sit her and let fascism take hold? How did that work out for the german's in the 30's. The russian's. Itailians. Japanesse.

They all were mislead by fascist propogandists. But the people stood by idly and let it happen. Just like we did, until people like me stood up and drew a line in the sand. I know I am the worst guy in the world to you people. If if that line is not and was not drawn, then there is no line. Then who stops the fascists? Who can without that line?

You people are not realizing the effects of what is happening. you don't understand. Or you do and it's a big joke. I'm not playing or laughing. My children will not be sucked into this.

That is why the change movement has taken hold. you people can rationalize all day long. you are side stepping reality. For civility. Screw civility. we are at the breaking point.

Republcains out there. It is time to turn around and stop. The american people are at the breaking point. They will stand for what you are doing for only so long. If you will not support america, why should america support you.

"am I my brother's keeper"

To support any business/government (the RNC, rush, fox) over the good and will of your coutnry is treason. I beg you to get fox/rush and savage off the air. Please. the american people are at their breaking point. the cauldron is threatening to break.

Bush said it not me.

"you are with us or agaisnt us"

Don't be with "them". The "them" is fascism. there is no nueral on a moving train. Eithe ryou are enabling the fascists or fighting them. I was brought into this fight by the o'reilly's of the world. I never wanted it. I didn't wage war on america or the fascists. Teh fascists waged war on us.

So what do we do? Two choices. The american people have been backed into two chocies after all these years. Every americcan must choose.

Either you are enabling fascists.

or

You are stoping the fascists.

Live your lives go about your business. Protest or not. Email/blog or letters or not. But vote. Everybody on this site please vote. Independant republcan democrat. Vote.

either you are enabling the fascists or fighting them. If you don't vote you are enabling them (I have never voted so I am just as guilty). Take that into account WHEN you vote.

Am I helping this country or hurting it. That's all. Live normal lives, but vote. In choosing your candidates you choose our fate america. Please. Please choose wisely. We may not get anyother chance if the fascists are able to dig in deeper, like ticks. We can't even use the doj to enforce laws on bush now, as it is. If they dig in longer it will be impossible to get justice and accountability in the future.

We stopped them just in time. Where are we going to go from here. This is the moment in history we've always been told about, when we would have to make that big choice. Choose. In not choosing you also choose.

Hisotry will remember us. You are not worthless, you are not voiceless. you have a voice if you have the courage to yell it. If BIll O'Reilly has free speech, with allthe blood on his and others hands amd all the pain it causes. WE HAVE FREE SPEECH TO THESE 10 BLOGGERS HERE. If O'Liely can lie to millions. We can preach truth to dozens.

Good luck people. Vote.

I've hardly stopped laughing these past two days. The pollsters, pundits, and "Hillary Haters" trying to come up with an explanation of what happened in NH. Well folks, the simple answer is-- Hillary got the most votes.

feliciacziN 06:01 PM,

The "poll" numbers are fantasy numbers. Treat them as if they did not exist.

The expected winner -Billary won. An expected third place, at best, came in a close second, considering the Billary dynamic duo had been campaigning there for three years prior.

It is an Obama win. He came out looking stronger than expected. The actual winner won by less than three points. She had been leading in double digits before IA.

Adrick - it stuck in turkey(on again and off again coups). explain. It stuck in Indonesia(former dutch colony, and ruled by a dictator up to 1998). It stuck in japan. It stuck in Germany. It is blossoming in eastern europe(debateable). your proclamations are misguided and devoid of fact.(this coming from you is beyond rich)

when will you Libs stop declaring the war is lost?

just as soon as you stop misrepresenting the facts.

"but you have dug your won grave by admitting it took Euros hundreds of years yet you insist the even-more democratically backwards middle east accomplish it in less than a decade with modern weapons abounding."

-Actually, Zouk, it is your president who has dug the grave - of US credibility around the world metaphorically, and of thousands of US soldiers and contractors, literally. And it was he and his administration who assumed in their planning that democracy could be established in Iraq within months or 1-2 years at most. I had nothing whatsover to do with it - I was minding my own business... I think I was in the process of moving to a new apartment at the time.

"the simple historical fact is that the good guys americans have always presented freedom and democracy to the world. It is what we do. we are noble."

-(ahem) smallpox blankets for Native Americans
Hundreds of years of slavery.
The Trail of Tears.
Imported Chinese labor building railroads.
"No Irish Need Apply."
internment camps for Japanese Americans.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki.
The Tuskegee Institute.
Joseph McCarthy.
propping up undemocratic dictators, from the Shah to Batista to Noriega to Suharto to the apartheid rulers of South Africa etc.
world's #1 consumer of disposable products produced in SE Asian sweatshops
world's #1 cause of climate change

you were saying?

"It just took us to now to get around to the Arabs and Persians. After this we can move on to Africa. and we will."

USA = Rome
Arabs = Huns
Persians = Celts
Africa = Africa

How'd that work out the first time around?

Adrick - it stuck in turkey. explain. It stuck in Indonesia. It stuck in japan. It stuck in Germany. It is blossoming in eastern europe. your proclamations are misguided and devoid of fact.

when will you Libs stop declaring the war is lost?

We have been living in this fake propoganda world for so long, it's hard to imagine a word that is not in a constant state of fear/readiness. Why? What changed? We've been attacked before.

Was it the attack, or the reaction to the attack. Horrible leadership, that used the attack to execute their twisted poltical ideaology to twist a free people to a fascist gop majority.

No wonder they worked so hard all those years to silence the left in this country. Damn boko. Where the heck did that come from?

"So how long do we wait, bleeding money and soldiers, for the Iraqis to duplicate a political evolution that took Europe/the West hundreds of years?"

This is my point - exactly - bokonon.

The Magna Carta was forced on King John in 1215, it took another 400+ years for the Petition of Right (1628) to be forced on Charles I, and then it wasn't until 1689 that the Glorious Revolution put down James II and Parliament finally triumphed over the Monarch. That's a span of 474 years.

Then consider the evolution of democratic government in the United States. Think of the growth from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence through Lincoln's Gettsburg Address to the Civil Rights Movement.

Democracy is not something that can be transplanted like a flower from one garden to another.

It is a tradition that takes decades or centuries to cultivate. Often involving much bloodletting and civil strife along the way.

Iraq is not even a nation in the same sense as America or England. Iraq is the creation of Britain and France (Sykes-Picot Agreement) following WWI.

These people are Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds first and foremost. They have more allegiance to their local tribes and clans than they do any Iraqi government. These people are Arabs (or Kurds) before they are Iraqis.

They have NO comparable experience to the West.

And have we considered that, perhaps, they do not want representative government?

Might they rather return to a caliphate under which they prospered for hundreds of years? Would they prefer some form of monarchial government to the turbulence of representative government? Don't they seem to flock to charismatic leadership?

Trying to transplant democracy into a culture with absolutely no historical experience in representative government is like trying to transplant that flower mentioned earlier into desert sand.

It simply will not take.

A strong leader will emerge and the people of his tribe -- be they Sunni or Shia -- will gladly follow him.

losers:well all of us for predicting a obama's win in New Hampshire. a tip of the hat to the Clinton campagin for a unexpected win. instead of a cornation, its a vetting process and im glad the dems are opting for it right now.

adrick henry-to answer your question, i wouldnt want to see the type of situation where 10 million troops occupying the middle east, for these reasons.

1)why give bin ladin 10 million reasons to recuit more foot soldiers.

2)drafting unmotivated and disadvantaged citzens to fight(mainly poor whites and minorities fighting a rich man's war) so far the professional milltary we have now is fine.

3)logistics, where are you going to train,house and ship out millions of troops? im no millitary man but thats going to take money and a effort we havent seen in 60 years.

4)targets-if you want to take out iran,then also consider bolstering iraq,and afganstan. then start taking out north korea(pissing off china),pakistan,and any other country that looks at us the wrong way. long story short we become the world's police force.

5)time-how long do you prepose we keep the drafted force around? 5 years? 10? 15? didnt support for vietnam sour with the american people after a few years?

"And on a side note, I am really getting tired of having to defend HRC. I don't like the woman and these posts are making my skin crawl so can we at least be fair to her?"

Dave, your willingness to be fair has been the reason I read your comments. There are only a handful of you regulars whose posts I do read...I scroll past others' nonsensical drivel. I also read newcomers' posts and am heartened every time a fair minded, reasoned person shows up. I hope they stay.

I want HRC to win but don't find the need to bash the others on either side. In fact, I make it a point to try to find a quality in each one that might make him a good president, and so far, the only one about whom I've been unsuccessful is Rudy.

Given that no one can predict who will win in November (polls are clearly inaccurate), I am interested in who gets the nomination on both sides for either could end up our president. Anyone truly interested in a more united country should stop listening to or reading venom from either side and stick to the issues instead to find some common ground. No one person can unite us and end gridlock -- only we, the people, can do it. And that means end the support of media pundits who resort to character assassinations and misrepresentations under the guise of analysis when what they're really doing is pushing their personal agenda.

dave, now that we're in there, we have to be careful about when and how we leave, I will give you that. How much easier it would all have been if we had invited UN participation and oversight when we still had friends in the international community who trusted and respected us.

boko - I am not going to engage in those stale old partisan arguments this year. It has been hashed and rehashed, there is little else to say. I suspect that no matter what is said, you will cling to your leftist view of the world in which all things Bush are misguided.

but you have dug your won grave by admitting it took Euros hundreds of years yet you insist the even-more democratically backwards middle east accomplish it in less than a decade with modern weapons abounding.

the simple historical fact is that the good guys americans have always presented freedom and democracy to the world. It is what we do. we are noble. It just took us to now to get around to the Arabs and Persians. After this we can move on to Africa. and we will.

Before I go. Can I use that in the future?

willful ignorance by bush, is not an excuse to remian willfully ignorant forever. Wow bokonon13.

I'm done for the day. I'm taking that gem and going home :)

wow bokonon13. Thank you for that. I have never heard that point. Get em'.

Excellant point. What changed? Perseption? Fear? propoganda?

Great point

zouk, there were also zero attacks on the US mainland under Clinton. And Bush I. And Reagan. And Carter. And Ford. And Nixon. And Johnson. And Kennedy. And Eisenhower. And Truman. Pearl Harbor under FDR... but before that, you have to go back (I think) to Abe Lincoln, and those attackers were Americans. You see my point... just the fact that ONE attack happened on Bush's watch, following his ignoring a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack In United States" - which specifically mentioned airplanes, and was thought to be threatening enough that the CIA director brought it to the urgent attention of Condi Rice, who brushed it off.
Sure, since then "not on US soil... I'll bet that makes the folks whose relatives were on that train in Spain,
or the subway in London,
or the nightclub in Bali,
or in Benazir Bhutto's party, etc.
SOOO much better.

bokonon13,
I actually care about people in general but would much rather less US troops die than more. That said, your analysis is a short term look at it. Long term, it will be better for Americans to have a stable Iraq. Not having the crystal ball, we don't know for sure but a secular democratic Iraq that could be a model for the rest of the ME could wind up saving more US (and other) lives in the long run.

I've posted before that we won't know for years if the surge (and Iraq in general) was a success, failure or something in between. Nobody today knows what the future consequences of Iraq will be.

"Proud, Dave and Zouk (et al):

Be honest...

Would you like to see us re-instate the draft, build an army over 10 million strong, smash the Iraqi insurgency once and for all, conquer those radical shia Iranians (avenge 1979!!!) and really establish American might throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world?

With us having bases throughout former enemy territory and well over a million men permanently stationed there to insure our steel-toed dominance.

Be honest -- would you like that?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 10, 2008 05:30 PM

yes. I'll answer for them. I was raised by these people. Yes :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 05:33 PM
"

It's called fascism. Who's job is it to stop fascism? who's responsiblity is it to make sure it never happens again?

The purpose of true chrsitianity is a better future. For the son to redeem the father, ending the sins of the past. And for the father, through lessons to the son, to redeem himself.

The goal of christianity is not to make little follower clones like you. It's to make YOU better. As your child is you and you are him/her. We are all one. our sins our pasted to our children.

If our children cannot safe us, who can. If we will not save our children, who will.

To work for a better future for the children is the goal. Or keep bickering over haircuts and tears. Or civility. the choice is all of your's. We deseerve the future we make for ourselves.

To soonerthought:

Hillary was expected to lose by at least 12%, but actually won by 3%, making her 15% differential huge, don't you thi

That's the thing AdrickHenry . The wrong way of governence is us going their and forcing our will on them. the america way, up until the last decades, was them running to us. Wanting to be like us. Wanting what we have.

who wants what we have now (in terms of government)? who's to blame? Let's fix it.

I would add another loser - the many independents who, fooled by pre-vote polls, gave their support to McCain under the assumption that Obama was so far ahead that he didn't need it.

dave says

"The surge has worked in that it has cut down the violence to allow the politicians a chance to do the things they need to do. Whether they take advantage of this chance remains to be seen and reports have not been promising."

So how long do we wait, bleeding money and soldiers, for the Iraqis to duplicate a political evolution that took Europe/the West hundreds of years?

boko - what happened to "we are the world".

so far bush's strategy has resulted in ZERO new attacks on the US mainland. Despite all else, that is a resounding success.

Proid and Dave: Thank you for answering soberly... I admit my question was extreme, but I believe you understood the dialogue was attempting to open up.

Do you think real democracy can take root in a place like Iraq?

Can democracy be exported to a 'nation' with no democratic tradition? ...no historical experience of representative government

dave, there may have been a 0 in 10 chance that life would be better for Iraqis if we had pulled out, but there would have been a 10 in 10 chance that several hundred AMERICANS would still be alive, and there would have been billions more dollars that we would not have had to borrow from the Chinese.

So sum up: definitely better for Americans, definitely worse for Iraqis, China would have had to look elsewhere to fund their air pollution and lead-filled toys. Last I checked, we as Americans care more about America, yes?

AdrickHenry - Be honest -- would you like that?

No. I'd much prefer that Iraq and the middle east become a secular democracy and learn to govern themselves. I would like people and countries in the ME to stop planning terrorist attacks against western countries. And last but certainly not least, I'd like our troops home. Hope that answers your questions.

adrick, The surge and the adoption of a new strategy of protecting the civilian population has now dramatically reduced the level of violence in Baghdad and pacified other parts of Iraq as well, even as the Dem candidates and liberals everywhere insist on pretending otherwise.

We have begun troop drawdown from Iraq, as planned. A draft is unecessary and would not have favorable results on the extremely professional all-volunteer force that we now have.

We have reduced U.S. force strength by 5,700 troops as of Christmas and, by next July, will reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 -- a decrease of roughly 21,500 troops overall.

The principle guiding those decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success' -- the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home as President Bush has reiterated.

"In all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy." Now that's a CIC I can support.

Or how about:

BUBBALICIOUS MOJO'S CHANGIN' CHANGE CELEBRA'SHUN

claudialong - "I agree with that Nissi--and we have to communicate, even by back channels, as we did with the Russians when they had thousands of nuclear weapons trained on our cities."

I sorry, I must have missed it - when did Hillary say that the US with her as president was not going to talk, on any level, to countries and leaders that are not our best friends? To my knowledge, that was not her position. I believe (and I am sure that lylepink can correct me) she said she would just not immedidately up and go meet one on one with the arch-enemies of the US. As far as communicating with the rest if the world, if she takes any cues from her husband, she will probably have to change her middle name from "Rodham" to "Diplomacy".

And on a side note, I am really getting tired of having to defend HRC. I don't like the woman and these posts are making my skin crawl so can we at least be fair to her?

I don't know who won, and who lost....I didn't bet the odds. I stick to a surer thing..like the lottery.

yes. I'll answer for them. I was raised by these people. Yes :)

Proud, Dave and Zouk (et al):

Be honest...

Would you like to see us re-instate the draft, build an army over 10 million strong, smash the Iraqi insurgency once and for all, conquer those radical shia Iranians (avenge 1979!!!) and really establish American might throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world?

With us having bases throughout former enemy territory and well over a million men permanently stationed there to insure our steel-toed dominance.

Be honest -- would you like that?

"Thursday January 10, 2008 14:49 EST
The U.S. military inflicts more damage on its own credibility
(updated below)

It seems increasingly clear that the U.S. military's initial claims about its interaction with those five Iranian speed boats in the Strait of Hormuz was exaggerated in significant ways, approaching Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman/Iraq-is-going-great territory. It's impossible to resolve all of the conflicting details of each side's self-serving version, but the most inflammatory facts which the Navy originally asserted, and which the American news media uncritically regurgitated, are quite dubious, if not demonstrably false.

Here, for instance, was the first paragraph of Tuesday's Washington Post story by Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson, highlighting the most dramatic and scariest part of the U.S. military's narrative:

We're coming at you, the Iranian radio transmission warned. Your ships will explode in a couple of minutes.
The next paragraph summarized the Navy's version that "five Iranian patrol boats sped toward the USS Port Royal and two accompanying ships as they crossed the Strait of Hormuz" and then "'maneuvered aggressively' on both sides of the U.S. ships." The next paragraph recounted:
After the radio transmission, two of the Iranian boats dropped "white box-like objects" into the water, [Vice Adm. Kevin J.] Cosgriff said.
Those are the two "facts" that infused the story with such a sinister tone -- explicit threats from the Iranian boats to destroy the American ships, followed by their dropping of unidentifiable boxes, which, one was supposed to infer, could easily have been explosive devices.

But the first "fact" seems almost certainly false, and the second one is highly questionable. Iranian Hooman Majd at The Huffington Post noted that the voices on the tapes issuing the melodramatic threats were unquestionably not Persian. As he put it: "the person speaking doesn't have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran's military." A regular Iranian commenter at Cernig's blog made the same point. Listen for yourself to the audio and see how credible the threats sound.

Since then, additional facts have emerged strongly negating the claim that that message came from those Iranian boats. The audio of the threats is crystal clear in sound quality, with no ambient noise -- something highly unlikely to be the case if delivered from a small, speeding boat. Moreover, as the New York Times' Mike Nizza reports today, quoting a reader claiming to be a former Naval officer, the channel that was used to convey the transmission is easily accessible to all sorts of private parties and is often the venue for hoaxes, pranks, and false messages.
"

glen greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

r

I would add ron paul. romney

the pollsters.

The propoganda/news outfits.

Those are the big losers.

Winners.

The voting american people because their voice made the call. no one else. We all should follow their lead. If it leads to Obama winning of course :)

mccain

The democratic party

How about :

SUPER ROOTIN TOOTIN TOOSDEE!!!

I would add the Club for Growth to your list of losers. The Club would rather see any Republican other than McCain win the nomination (with the possible exception of Huckabee - but that just underscores the point that this primary season has been a disaster so far for the Club).

and i'm pretty sure that new york at least is not a winner take all primary.

kingofzouk 04:58 PM,

I know but its a flourish she would, no doubt, appreciate.

Dowd, have you seen her photo at her Times page? Me no like.

We need a better name:

Super Duper Tuesday -- clumsy and inartful.

Tsunami Tuesday -- good, but not if it doesn't absolutely determine the outcome.

Cymbal Crash Tuesday -- George Will has a big enough head already. Ignore him.

Here's my offering -- Power Ball Tuesday.

Power Ball is a big, glitzy multistate affair with big, big prizes.

But, even more to the point, sometimes the biggest prize isn't won and the contest rolls over to the next week.

Perfect description, yes?

Power Ball Tuesday -- Think about it!

in response to some earlier posts --

on NH endorsements:

neither sununu nor shaheen endorsed any candidate, although shaheen's husband bill (i think it's bill) was a leading clinton backer in the state until he more or less invited republicans to scrutinize obama's history with drugs. he resigned after hillary chastised him publicly.

on judd gregg:

it is often awkward for senators in particular to endorse a candidate over a colleague. gregg stuck his neck out and appeared all over the state supporting romney only to have a senate colleague he passed over win more votes in gregg's own state than romney did. it's a knock at gregg's political weight.

on the merits of partisanship:

it is true that some principles ought not to be compromised. but when two sides draw a line in the sand and hold fast in the name of principle, often nobody's principle wins, and whatever problem it is that they have such principled opinions about goes unaddressed. effective bipartisanship is not necessarily compromise - it's seeking out a point of agreement. for example, pro-life senators and pro-choice senators are unlikely to vote the same way on proposed restrictions on abortion... but one could cull together a coalition from among those factions big enough to move legislation on pregnancy prevention programs. obama's vision of bipartisanship doesnt mean liberal view + conservative view divided by two. perhaps its closer to addressing problems from perspectives that aren't necessarily either.

pinball wizard - that is not true for every state and is also party dependent. florida is the first winner take all contest and Rudy is expected to catch and surpass the other candidates then. NJ, NY are also winner take all - a rich prize.

That's why it's better to support your country over any and all parties or outside influces. The prospect of conflict of interest personified.

"Blackwater Used Gas on US Soldiers and Iraqis
By: Nicole Belle @ 2:01 PM - PST NY Times: (reg. req'd)

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

"This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous," Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. "It's not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness."

Both the helicopter and the vehicle involved in the incident at the Assassins' Gate checkpoint were not from the United States military, but were part of a convoy operated by Blackwater Worldwide, the private security contractor that is under scrutiny for its role in a series of violent episodes in Iraq, including a September shooting in downtown Baghdad that left 17 Iraqis dead.

None of the American soldiers exposed to the chemical, which is similar to tear gas, required medical attention, and it is not clear if any Iraqis did. Still, the previously undisclosed incident has raised significant new questions about the role of private security contractors in Iraq, and whether they operate under the same rules of engagement and international treaty obligations that the American military observes.

"You run into this issue time and again with Blackwater, where the rules that apply to the U.S. military don't seem to apply to Blackwater," said Scott L. Silliman, the executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law.

Officers and noncommissioned officers from the Third Infantry Division who were involved in the episode said there were no signs of violence at the checkpoint. Instead, they said, the Blackwater convoy appeared to be stuck in traffic and may have been trying to use the riot-control agent as a way to clear a path.

You know, I get frustrated in rush hour traffic too, but that's ridiculous. I have to agree with Markos:

The use of these mercenaries has been glorified by the Right for years. But at the end of the day, their actions have hampered and perhaps even sabotaged our mission while endangering our troops.
"

Support the troops zouk. I hear you thinking, "Which ones should I support".

r

'We need to show the rest of the world that we are listening to everyone, but not that we'll go along with them. As globalization proceeds, it's time to begin firmly anchoring our bridges to the rest of the world.'

I agree with that Nissi--and we have to communicate, even by back channels, as we did with the Russians when they had thousands of nuclear weapons trained on our cities. What kept us alive during the Cold War was that each side acknowledged that some small incident could be misconstrued and lead to a lethal declaration and launch.

"i'm not fat, zouk, so i don't worry about calories.

Posted by: claudialong | January 10, 2008 04:39 PM
"

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Zouk. I thought what was happening in the elctions scared you off. After all, what is a blogger/newsperson with zero crediblity? A propogandist?

Fix and Fix readers, I have a BIG question.

Why does the media treat the primaries/caucus like all-or-nothing events? That's simply not accurate! From my research, I was shocked to find out that it's about accumulating delegates, not "winning" states.

Apparently, all candidates (that receive at least 15% of a particular state) get a proportional amount of the states delegates. Let's take the Democrats for example. This means the when Barak Obama "crushed" Hillary in Iowa, he won 16 delegates for the convention in August. And get this... Hillary won 15. The reverse is true in New Hampshire! The vaunted comeback kid's surprise victory was supposed to be sending shockwaves through Obama's camp. What did she really win in New Hampshire? Nine Delegates. How many did Obama win you ask? Well the New Hampshire race was close enough that he actually won... 9?!

This makes the current delegate counts (not including the complicated superdelegates): Obama 25, Clinton 24... and believe it or not Edwards 18. Oh and by the way you need 2,000+ Delegates at the convention to win the nomination.

Why does the media treat this like a Win-Loss game instead of what it really is?!

Don't beat up cc to bad.

Obviously his job is to get out what we really think. Show the man some respect.

Very ego'less of him. Way to take one for the team chris. Drindl zouk and mark apprecaite you :)

rfpiktor - if you are of the male persuasion, I don't think camille would be interested. I know that MoDo has been looking for a man all her life though, if you can stand her. It seems no one else can.

"But right now, I'm supporting Hillary. She's a street fighter. I believe she can eke out incremental change in a hostile environment. And I think that's what we need right now."

I think it's time to put aside all of the rhetoric about race, gender, and experience vs. change and focus on this question. I'm of the countervailing opinion: that the best way to get major reform enacted is with a charismatic leader who can give us a larger majority and sell the plans to the American people.

I understand the anger that many Democrats feel at the wrecking of our country the past 7 years - I feel it too. But I want to win big and include independents and moderate republicans. We can do so much more with a mandate for change. The American discourse can be at such a higher level than it has been these last couple of decades.

The other critical thing people need to think about is the differences on foreign policy. Clinton has articulated very different positions from Obama on Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, not to mention Putin (who she directly insulted over the weekend). She has a very different point of view about America's place in the 21st century and the best way to interact with our allies and enemies. Frankly, I'm staunchly in Obama's internationalist camp. We need to show the rest of the world that we are listening to everyone, but not that we'll go along with them. As globalization proceeds, it's time to begin firmly anchoring our bridges to the rest of the world.

-pamela,

Hey, if NPR says it, it must be true. So it's news that reaching the political goals in Iraq are what is lacking and the Maliki government has problems? The surge has worked in that it has cut down the violence to allow the politicians a chance to do the things they need to do. Whether they take advantage of this chance remains to be seen and reports have not been promising. But it's not over yet either.

i don't worry about calories.

Posted by: claudialong | January 10, 2008 04:39 PM

not surprised, with so many
Republican injustices in the world to take up all your time.

'On Friday, Deputy Assistant to Nobody Dave'

precisely.

Camille,

I kneel in rapt adoration, and ask you this:

Will you be my wife?

This is some mega gal. She put into words- backed with precise vignettes- of the fun to be had a the Rodham's home.

This is what men see, without knowing the background story. Billary reeks of contempt and Sister Superior arrogance.

JimD:

WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (IPS) - Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea", new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

The edited Navy video shows a crewman issuing an initial warning to approaching boats, but the footage of the boats maneuvering provides no visual evidence of Iranian boats "making a run on U.S. ships" as claimed by CBS news Wednesday in its report based on the new video.

Vice Adm. Cosgriff also failed to claim any run toward the U.S. ships following the initial warning. Cosgriff's answers to reporters' questions indicated that the story promoted earlier by Pentagon officials that one of the U.S . ships came very close to firing at the Iranian boats seriously distorted what actually happened. When Cosgriff was asked whether the crew ever gave warning to the Iranian boats that they "could come under fire", he said the commanding officers "did not believe they needed to fire warning shots".

Proud,

This week, to acknowledge the anniversary of the surge, NPR is running a series of reports on how well the surge has worked. Didn't hear what they said today, but yesterday's topic was about the completely dysfunctional Maliki government and the powerless of the US to alter that dynamic. Recent reports about interally displaced Iraqi citizens and refugees leaving Iraq for other middle eastern countries sure make it sound like Iraq is a country in chaos - maybe not Al Qaeda but chaos none the less. At best, we have a holding pattern where the violence has leveled off. Good government - and the ability to maintain democracy after we inevitably leave - don't seem to be on the horizon.

claudialong - 'UDPATE II: On Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt said that there's "maybe" a "three in 10″ chance "the surge will be a success."'

UPDATE III: On Friday, Deputy Assistant to Nobody Dave said there was "maybe" a "zero in 10 chance of a better scenario for Iraqis over the last year" if the US had pulled out a year ago.

i'm not fat, zouk, so i don't worry about calories.

wonder if any of the candidates will heed? 81% quite a few.

'According to a January 2007 poll conducted for the group Environmental Defense, 81 percent of South Carolina's Republican voters believe the United States should reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

South Carolina's Republican Governor Mark Sanford has commissioned a committee to create a climate action plan for the state. During the last legislative session, 90 House and 24 Senate members -- split evenly between Republicans and Democrats -- signed an open letter calling for presidential leadership on climate change.

Furthermore, in November, 108 of South Carolina's mayors "signed a separate letter also calling on presidential candidates to speak out on climate change.'

drindl couldn't eat an ice cream sunday without proclaiming the horror of the calorie count.

the key point..

UDPATE II: On Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt said that there's "maybe" a "three in 10″ chance "the surge will be a success."

President Bush this week marks the first anniversary of his speech announcing his 2007 escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq by traveling to the Middle East in an effort to salvage the damage done to the region by his policies over the past seven years. Iraq will dominate the diplomatic discussions even though the Arab-Israeli conflict and containing Iran's influence in the region are the focus of the president's trip. And here at home, the public continues to debate whether the decline from record levels of violence in Iraq over the past three months has strengthened or weakened U.S. national security.

In fact, Bush's Iraq policy has weakened America's security on two key fronts. First, the United States continues to sink precious national security resources into Iraq at the expense of other threats, including Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At some point in 2008, the United States will pass the $1 trillion mark for the out-of-pocket costs to U.S. taxpayers for the Bush administration's response to September 11th.

Second, the Bush approach to Iraq is heavily focused on military tactics, which has exacerbated rather than lessened tensions between Iraq's competing factions by failing to make advances on resolving the country's core power-sharing disputes. Iraq at the start of 2008 is even more bitterly divided along ethnic and sectarian lines than it was at the start of 2007, increasing the possibility that the recent declines in violence may be a temporary lull.

Violence is down in parts of the country, but the different sides in Iraq's multiple power struggles are further away from a sustainable power-sharing settlement. And the Bush administration's 2007 approach has built a shaky and combustible foundation. Providing support to multiple Iraqi security forces without serious advances on Iraq's political reconciliation risks even higher levels of conflict in 2008 and beyond.

Indeed, there are four ticking time bombs to watch closely in Iraq in the coming months that will reveal the extent of the damage done to internal Iraqi reconciliation and U.S. national security by the president's ill-considered "surge" strategy. Those time bombs are:

The collapse of "bottom up" reconciliation among Sunnis
Increased instability in northern Iraq
The continuing plight of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis
Continued deadlock among Iraq's national political leaders
All four of these issues are explosive to Iraqi political reconciliation--the original goal of the Bush "surge" strategy--and each one could well fragment the fragile decline in violence brought about by our brave troops in the field this past year. What's worse, the loss in additional American lives would come amid a still smoldering set of civil wars which the "surge" has only partially tamped down. Here's the state of these four time bombs today.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/surge_anniversary.html

One year ago today, in an address to the nation, President Bush announced his new "surge" strategy for Iraq. In his speech, Bush said that the goal of the "surge" was to improve security in order to give the Iraqi government "the breathing space it needs" to "make reconciliation possible."

Though violence in Iraq has diminished in the tail end of 2007, these "fragile" security gains have not been accompanied by sufficient "progress on any of the key political benchmarks so critical to bringing Iraq together." In fact, as we enter 2008, Iraq is "even more bitterly divided along ethnic and sectarian lines than it was at the start of 2007."

Despite the failure of the surge to meet its political goals, war hawks are rushing to declare victory. Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) declare that "the surge worked."

Here are a few examples of how their claims of "victory" do not correspond with the reality in Iraq:

CLAIM: "The surge worked."

FACT: In October, the Government Accountability Office assessed that of the eight political benchmarks set forth by President Bush and Congress, the Iraqi government had only "met one legislative benchmark and partially met another." Since then, progress has stalled on key areas laid out by Bush: an oil law, de-Baathification reform, a process for amending the Constitution and provincial elections.

CLAIM: "Conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge."

FACT: Though the "surge" has helped Sunni Arabs in Anbar province push al Qaeda in Iraq to the sidelines, the decision to turn on al Qaeda was not caused by the "surge." U.S. commanders wisely "took advantage of these changing dynamics," but they did not cause them. Additionally, as al Qaeda's presence has decreased, sectarian strife has increased.

CLAIM: "We have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory."

FACT: Only politicians and pundits are speaking of victory. At the end of last year, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, cautioned that "recent security gains are fragile and still reversible." "We are trying to be cautious as we describe the progress that is taking place in Iraq," Petraeus told Foreign Affairs. "There are a number of concerns that we do have."

For the one year anniversary of Bush's surge speech, the Center for American Progress's Brian Katulis and Peter Juul have laid out "four ticking time bombs" in Iraq that must be addressed. Instead of pre-maturely declaring victory as they so often do, McCain and Lieberman should take note and exercise the caution that Gen. Petraeus advises.

UDPATE II: On Tuesday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt said that there's "maybe" a "three in 10″ chance "the surge will be a success."

Chris Cillizza,

I forgive you.

WE ALL GOT IT WRONG.

This is my favorite:

HERE COME THOSE TEARS By DICK MORRIS Published on January 8, 2008. Why did Hillary cry during an ABC interview yesterday? Some say it was phony, contrived to make her appear more human and empathetic. Wrong. She must have known the political consequences, particularly for a female candidate, of tears. Ed Muskie watered his political grave in New Hampshire in 1972 by crying in public over the false accusation that he had used a derogatory ethnic term to describe French Canadians. Nixon's dirty tricks people had planted the phony story. But the tears ended Muskie's candidacy. Others say that the tears reflected genuine emotion and sorrow for the diminished future prospects of America now that it would not have Hillary Clinton to lead it into the future. Wrong again. Even she is not that arrogant. The real reason was that her frustration at not being able to control events boiled over and metastasized into tears. I know because I saw it once before in 1994 after the Democrats lost Congress due, in large part, to her failed health care reform initiative. A few days after the election, she sobbed to me over the phone that she was "bewildered" and that "nothing I do seems to work out." She confessed to being "totally at a loss" and not to grasp why "nothing is working." Hillary is a control freak whose most admirable quality (yes, there are some) is her amazing self-discipline. She wears the right clothing, exercises properly, eats sensibly, stays on script when she answers questions, memorizes the briefing papers, follows the strategy, hits all the right talking points, gets her makeup and hair just right. So why is she losing? The essential equation for her is that if she disciplines herself sufficiently and prepared arduously, she will prevail. But when she doesn't, she is at sea. She becomes frustrated by her loss of control and doesn't know where to turn. She has great faith in gurus and chooses them carefully. But once she invests her faith in one of them, she follows their lead to the end of the earth. But if she doesn't achieve her objective, if the guru's instructions prove flawed, she is at a loss as to what to do and she becomes very emotional. A person who never bends, she sometimes breaks. Contrast her reaction to adversity with Bill's. The former president becomes furious. He rants and raves to all who will listen about the injustices being done to him (or to Hillary) and demands redress. He refuses to concede the merit in his attackers but, red in the face, screams in rage at his adversity. For us the question is which we would rather have as president, an angry, determined, energized chief executive or one who is lost, awash in self-pity and confused by failure? The answer is obvious. Hillary lacks the temperament to be president. What is the political consequence of her lapse on ABC? Probably huge. Americans are warmed when a politician is moved to tears by the plight of someone else. But they get turned off when it is their own plight that the public figure bewails. Pity for others is positive. Self-pity unforgiveable in our politics. We want a president who will not go to pieces when the missiles start flying. And, on Monday, in the snows of New Hampshire, Hillary Rodham Clinton failed the test.

Camille tells it like it is:

"A swarm of biographers in miners' gear has tried to plumb the inky depths of Hillary Rodham Clinton's warren-riddled psyche. My metaphor is drawn (as Oscar Wilde's prim Miss Prism would say) from the Scranton coalfields, to which came the Welsh family that produced Hillary's harsh, domineering father.

Hillary's feckless, loutish brothers (who are kept at arm's length by her operation) took the brunt of Hugh Rodham's abuse in their genteel but claustrophobic home. Hillary is the barracuda who fought for dominance at their expense. Flashes of that ruthless old family drama have come out repeatedly in this campaign, as when Hillary could barely conceal her sneers at her fellow debaters onstage -- the wimpy, cringing brothers at the dinner table.

Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them. Following the pattern of her long-suffering mother, she thinks it is her mission to endure every insult and personal degradation for a higher cause -- which, unlike her self-sacrificing mother, she identifies with her near-messianic personal ambition.

It's no coincidence that Hillary's staff has always consisted mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust. Hillary's rumored hostility to uniformed military men and some Secret Service agents early in the first Clinton presidency probably belongs to this pattern. And let's not forget Hillary, the governor's wife, pulling out a book and rudely reading in the bleachers during University of Arkansas football games back in Little Rock.

Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.

How does all this affect the prospect of a Hillary presidency? With her eyes on the White House, Hillary as senator has made concerted and generally successful efforts to improve her knowledge of and relationship to the military -- crucial for any commander-in-chief but especially for the first female one. However, I remain concerned about her future conduct of high-level diplomacy. Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way. It's a Nixonian reflex steeped in toxic gender bias. How will that play in the Muslim world?

The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight. The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I'm skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?

The current wave of support for Barack Obama from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans is partly based on his vision of a new political discourse that breaks with the petty, destructive polarization of the past 20 years. Whether Obama can build up his foreign policy credentials sufficiently to reassure an anxious general electorate remains to be seen.

But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/index.html

first MoDo, now camille. don't cry hillary, this will leave lots of time alone with bill.

proud writes
"In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran."

Proud, that is not at all clear. The military itself has said - very clearly - that we do not have the resources to maintain the surge. Meanwhile the Kurds are calling for the replacement of the Maliki gov't; given that gov'ts failure to accomplish any of the political goals of the surge as announced by President Bush, perhaps that's not such a terrible idea - though such a course would be fraught with risk. The other important metric is that US casualties were higher in the last year than in any prior year. So while certain areas of Iraq are safer now than they were, it is not at all clear that we are making the kind of progress that will have a long term duration.

Two Losers you forgot, Chris:

1. The MSM for not investigating the election results more thoroughly and blaming the inaccuracy of the polls.

2. The citizens of this country, for relying on said media.

Proud - you should know by now that every time a Dem gets their legislative way, it turns out to be a failure after a time. there are just so many examples.

I suppose you can call EMILY's List and Nick Clemons/Guy Cecil 'winners' because they will get the credit for the win. But its not at all clear that the Clinton campaign even knows what they did to get the win - for most of the day they expected to lose. Sen Clinton herself claims, in retrospect, that the change happened after the Sat debate; of course she can't credit the diner incident, as that wouldn't reflect well on herself. But it sure seems like if they had any clue about a turnaround & what caused it, they would have been more upbeat on the night before & morning of primary day.

It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.

In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.

In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992665423979631.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

matthewanton -- you may have a point there. too often in the past, 'bipartisanship' [like the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman] simply meant caving to everything republicans wanted. there are certain things that are too important to compromse on.

Okay, aside from my distaste for "horse race" political journalism; I have to say that 3% is not a landslide. Obama came very, very close to defeating Sen. Clinton, yet the news media is acting like this was a decisive victory. Well, it ain't. It's what's called a squeaker.

Partisanship.

Nobody likes it. Everyone wants Washington and all of the U.S. to be less partisan.

Obama has been speaking on this theme and his message is very appealing.

However, what does it actually mean?

When Congress passes a modest expansion of health insurance for children and the president vetoes it, and his Senate Republican colleagues sustain the veto, declaring that it's an extension of socialized medicine, how do you move beyond partisanship?

How would a President Obama work together with Republicans to resolve issues like health care and social security?

How would a President Hillary Clinton?

I don't know. I'm not sure that there IS a way to move forward on these issues other than by electing a workable Democratic majority in the Senate, and extending the Democratic majority in the House.

Republicans, in general, don't believe government can help solve problems. Therefore, NOT doing anything is okay with them. Gridlock is good.

I like Obama. I think he's a terrific guy. If he is the nominee I will gladly vote for him.

But right now, I'm supporting Hillary. She's a street fighter. I believe she can eke out incremental change in a hostile environment. And I think that's what we need right now.

Obama vs. Clinton on the Environment...

greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-vs-clinton-on-environment.html

Please tell me what the surprise is? McCain won NH? who didn't see that coming? huckelberry won the corn state? Obama won in Iowa and the clinton machine produced in NH? If any of you were surprised by this and consider yourselves pundits, please go find another occupation. so far everything is just so predictable.<