Howard Dean is first.

Written a year ago, still true today.

Leadership needed, not political calculation.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1201

Gary Hart on Hillary's Iraq War Vote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/...

It's surely apparent to all who read or post here that a mea culpa from Hillary about her Iraq vote (or any of her other "bush's worst" votes) wouldn't change my opinion of her. And it's also surely apparent that Edwards' mea culpa didn't help him with with more than a few.

So at this point Hillary might as well ride her record proudly to defeat as abandon it to ridicule and defeat. 

"Triangulation" and "centrism" may have led to eight years of a Democratic presidency in the 1990s.. But it also blurred the principles of the Democratic party. It led young politicians to believe that the safest course was in some vague middle ground. And, tragically, it led too many Democrats to believe they had to prove their national security credentials by voting for any military misadventure right wing hawks could think up.

Wow. I've always thought of Gary Hart was one of those Democrats. If he never really was, or now sees the light, I'm glad of it. 

Hi all,

I'm spreading around a great poster that artist  <a href="http://obeygiant.com/main.php/">Shepard Fairey</a> designed of Obama. He's given permission for supporters to download (pdf) and print out a great black and white version <a href="http://obeygiant.com/images/barack_poster_bw-85x11.pdf">HERE!</a> 

Drat...let me try that again so you can read it:

http://obeygiant.com/images/barack_poster_bw-85x11.pdf

I know this endorsement is not earth shattering, but I like it. 

Joan Baez Endorses Barack Obama

Editor - I have attempted throughout my life to give a voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless, encouragement to the discouraged, and options to the cynical and complacent. From Northern Ireland to Sarajevo to Latin America, I have sung and marched, engaged in civil disobedience, visited war zones, and broken bread with those who had little bread to break.

Through all those years, I chose not to engage in party politics. Though I was asked many times to endorse candidates at every level, I was never comfortable doing so. At this time, however, changing that posture feels like the responsible thing to do. If anyone can navigate the contaminated waters of Washington, lift up the poor, and appeal to the rich to share their wealth, it is Sen. Barack Obama. If anyone can bring light to the darkened corners of this nation and restore our positive influence in world affairs, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can begin the process of healing and bring unity to a country that has been divided for too long, it is Barack Obama. It is time to begin a new journey.

JOAN BAEZ

Menlo Park

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/ED50UO8QM.DTL&hw=Joan+Baez&sn=001&sc=1000

Good on Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris, also (HuffPo).

http://tinyurl.com/38xuxq

Gotta love those Second Waver feminist historians (who don't become all "misty-eyed" when listening to Billary natter on about zilch).

Race, sex, and class.

Billary must've sat out or dozed off during Wellesley lectures ('69 alum.)?

Requires more than a 30 second sound byte--not sure the nation can sit still long enough to actually think critically (and maybe read a damned intellectual women's history book).

Duh.

The Dead Heads for Obama Concert is on tomorrow night.  Doesn't give a time.  But here is link.  Will be streamed on iclips.

http://www.iclips.net./deadheadsforobama.php

Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris's intellectual "take" on Edwards, Obama, & Billary (A.B.H. & race/gender-oriented).

Bingo.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough women in this country who think critically, know women's history (and who will vote with their intellect, vs. "react").

http://tinyurl.com/2btv2w

"Hillary's record, like those of the other candidates, falls far short of what's needed to achieve my desires. She has voted against expanding funds for subsidized day care or allowing poor women to use welfare funds to get an education; her health care program is still too closely tied to the insurance industry. Her foreign policy seems to look toward the more hawkish Democratic advisers of the '90s; she has equivocated about how rapidly she would withdraw American forces from the Middle East. But I have hopes that all three candidates will push the others into articulating the kind of vision that recalls the feminism I once knew. When and if Hillary gets there, I will be her most ardent supporter."

Just wanted to drop by to post a link to Paul Krugman's new article appearing tomorrow.

This article points out, if Obama gets to the White House, we won't have Universal Health Care. He explains the major differences between Hillary's and Obama and even for the fact a lone that his would leave half of the current uninsured off, it would cost more per person and wouldn't keep costs down, but the fact that he is actually now smearing and falsely attacking Hillary for with the Old Republican smears of 1993, Harry and Louise ads, attempting to scare people with "mandates", if he is so opposed to mandating health care, he is opposed to Universal. (lets not even mention the Republican games he's playing (again).

Paul Krugman's article here 

copy of Harry and Louise ad 

And the above information on the big differences on Health Care alone, does not include the other major differences, which there are, between womens health and rights and Global Warming, including the simplest of higher increases on CAFE standards. 

http://obeygiant.com/images/barack_poster_bw-85x11.pdf

It sure warmed my heart to see a defensive line win a football game.

Linda

I wouldn't have brought up the issue the week Edwards supporters are up for grabs either.

Linda I can't get over Hillary's authorization of war with Iran. Kyl-Lieberman puts her firmly in the War Party.

I just did something I haven't done this entire election season -- sat through a campaign rally. I don't watch them because they are almost always as informative and entertaining as infomercials for kitchen utensils. But I got sucked into this one because of something unexpected and altogether amazing.

<>As I was channel surfing I on landed on Cspan and saw Caroline Kennedy, so I listened because I've always had a soft spot for her. Then Oprah came on and she was her usual Oprahness. Then she introduced Michelle Obama and Stevie Wonder. Well, I had to stick around to see what Stevie had to say and it was great -- he even taught the audience a simple little song about Obama.<>

<>Then Michelle came on, and, as I wasn't expecting much -- having seen her last summer when she impressed me as a bland wallflower type --  I was about to move on. But the instant she started speaking I realized a near miraculous change had taken place since then. She was more self assured and charismatic than Caroline, Oprah, Stevie (and even Barack) combined. She spoke with an organic elegance that was of someone who knows not just of the struggles of ordinary people, but of their aspirations as well. I sat riveted during her entire speech and saw the same thing in the huge audience. 

Then Maria Shriver came on and it was like listening to air being let out of a balloon by comparison. Oh well, got to throw a bone to the guv. (Note to future speakers at Obama rallies -- never follow Michelle Obama if you knw what's good for you.)

Everyone knows I'm a cynical old crank when it comes to politicians, and I always do my best to ignore their spouses (except when they get nasty) but Michelle Obama actually inspired me -- not to vote for Obama since I have no real choice at this point -- but that SHE will make sure he does what's right as president.

Give her a keynote address at the convention because she'll be the best speaker there. 

Phil, I hear you, but I actually find it worse when someone, Obama, campaigned for his US Senate seat on the "dumb war", and the "inustices of the Patriot Act" , after they already took place, but spent his 2 years in the Senate since,  before running for president, voting for each War Bill to continue it, and besides not writing or co sponsoring one Bill to end the war, he didn't even vote to end the occupation and redeploy our troops on the one Resolution brought forward in June 2006 by Feingold Kerry.  And of course, we also know he voted too for the Patriot Act 2.  And being his campaign theme is "I didn't vote on the War", when he didn't have a vote, but surely continued it since, and there are so many detractions on his other votes and policy, it's a candidacy hard to fathom.

oh and Phil, thank you for your comment.

ciao! 

Edwards supporters are up for grabs.

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but it sounds demeaning to speak of people as being "up for grabs."

But then, maybe it's just a matter of projecting. 

From what I'm seeing the Obama steamroller isn't going to slowed by the petty sematics of health insurance rhetoric nor the petulance of a few former Edwardiacs.

The Dead Heads for Obama Concert is on tomorrow night.  Doesn't give a time.  But here is link.  Will be streamed on iclips.

http://www.iclips.net./deadheadsforobama.php

Thanks, s m!

I'll be cybering in to it.

Linda and Phil.

Here's some evidence that BO is just as much a warmonger now that he's in the Senate.  He's not been consistent and is frankly, lying.  He backed Liebermann and Rice.  Poor judgment.

******************************** 

Iraq in the U.S. Senate

"Once elected to the U.S. Senate, however, his (BO's) anti-war voice became muted. Obama supported unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006. And--despite her false testimonies before Congress and her mismanagement of Iraq policy before, during, and after the U.S. invasion in her role as National Security Advisor--Obama broke with most of his liberal colleagues in the Senate by voting to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state during his first weeks in office.

Obama didn't even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it, he called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops but no timetable for their withdrawal. In June 2006, he voted against an amendment by Senators Russ Feingold and John Kerry for such a timetable.

In addition, during the 2006 Democratic congressional primaries, he campaigned for pro-war incumbents--including Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman against his eventually victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont--and other conservative Democrats fighting back more progressive anti-war challengers."

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4886 

more from above article:

Iraq as a Presidential Candidate

"It was only after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton, called for setting a date to withdraw U.S. combat troops, and only after Obama formed his presidential exploratory committee, that he introduced legislation setting a date for troop withdrawal. And it was only this past spring that he began voting against unconditional funding for the war.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006, Obama appeared to buy into the Bush administration's claims that its goal in Iraq was not about oil or empire, but to advance freedom, by criticizing the Bush administration for invading Iraq for unrealistic "dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government." Instead of calling for an end to the increasingly bloody U.S.-led military effort, he instead called for "a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq," with repeated references to the need to defeat the insurgency.

Despite polls showing a majority of Americans desiring a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, he acknowledged that U.S. troops may need to stay in that occupied country for an "extended period of time," and that "the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq." Specifically, he called for U.S. forces to maintain a "reduced but active presence," to "protect logistical supply points" and "American enclaves like the Green Zone" as well as "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists."

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23759#comment-1165398 

MORE

Iran: Mixed Messages

Obama has criticized the Bush administration for its belligerent policy toward Iran and has warned against precipitous military action. In addition, though being out on the campaign trail when the vote was taken made it impossible to formally go on record, Obama has harshly criticized Senator Clinton for supporting the bellicose Kyl-Lieberman amendment targeting Iran, which many saw as paving the way for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.

Despite this, Senator Obama has appeared to buy into some of the more alarmist and exaggerated views of Iran's potential threat. For example, he has referred to Iran--a mid-level power on the far side of the globe that currently does not have a nuclear weapons program and is nearly a decade away from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons--as a "genuine threat."

In remarks Obama prepared for a speech to an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Forum in March of last year, he said: Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest." He has not been able to explain why--given that Israel itself has had nuclear weapons for at least 35 years and no other Middle Eastern country has yet gone nuclear--Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would suddenly lead other countries in the region to immediately follow suit.

Because of this alleged threat, Obama insisted that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." One option he has not endorsed, however, is the proposed establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the Middle East, similar to initiatives already undertaken in Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. Rather than embrace such a comprehensive approach to non-proliferation in the Middle East, he apparently accepts the Bush administration's contention that the United States gets to decide which Middle Eastern countries can have nuclear weapons and which ones cannot."

"During the past two years, however, Obama has largely taken positions in support of the hard-line Israeli government, making statements virtually indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration.

....And though, as recently as last March, Obama acknowledged the reality that that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," as a result of the stalled peace process he has since placed the blame for the impasse not on the Israeli occupation but on the Palestinians themselves.

In addition, rejecting calls by peace and human rights activists that U.S. military aid to Israel, like all countries, should be contingent on the government's adherence to international humanitarian law, Obama has called for "fully funding military assistance."

"it's quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family, he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being labeled as "anti-Israel." Ironically, a strong case can be made that the right-wing militaristic policies he may feel forced to defend actually harm Israel's legitimate long-term security interests.

His stance on Pakistan is just as scary.  We know that going into Pakistan would be declared an act of war or close to it...Musharraf make that very clear.  Sounds like he wants to continue the *democratization* of the ME..just like putzie.

"“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,” Obama said, openly suggesting cross-border raids into Pakistan which, while reportedly already a tool of American foreign policy through Special Forces actions, are a taboo subject. “Our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally,” he said. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7590.html 

During a major foreign policy speech on Wednesday Senator Barack Obama promised that as president he would consider military strikes against terrorists in Pakistan if the country refused to root them out. Those comments drew a sharp response from Pakistani officials as well as the Bush administration today.

“It’s a very irresponsible statement, that’s all I can say,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri said in an interview with A.P. Television News. “As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/obama-takes-heat-on-pakistan/ 

Goodnite!  :-)

Good morning, everybody

What shall it be?  Coward McCain or Fly Boy? 

I find it hard to understand how Hillary got suckered into talking about mandates forcing people to purchase insurance for health care.  It's one thing to levy a tax; it's another to order someone to give money to someone else over whose behavior one has no control.

On the other hand, "mandates" is a topic that is good to discuss since that's what the federal government has been ignoring.  It really is essential to a free society--one that's organized on the basis of consensus--that there be a mechanism to  implement what's been decided. That's what the agents of government are for, to carry out the directives of the body politic.  The agents of government operate according to mandates.

Who gives the orders?  The people.

Who carried them out?  The agents of government.

When the agents of government start giving orders, we've got a problem.

As long as there were certain segments of the population (blacks, women) that could be ordered about at will, the authoritarian impulse was relatively easy to satisfy.  Somehow, the logical alternative, self-control, hasn't quite caught on. 

On the other hand, "mandates" is a topic that is good to discuss since that's what the federal government has been ignoring.  It really is essential to a free society--one that's organized on the basis of consensus--that there be a mechanism to  implement what's been decided

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

single payer would be a mandate, taxes are a mandate, driving on the right side of the road is a mandate

"...Some believe that an individual mandate to buy health insurance should be part of this effort; others hold that a mandate would be paternalistic or too onerous for families at the margins of affordability. Regardless of our feelings on this issue, what is clear from the evidence is that mandates alone, without strong incentives to comply and harsh punishments for violation, will have little impact on the number of uninsured Americans. Indeed, as the Massachusetts experience illustrates, non-compliance with mandates is a large problem, absent harsh sanctions. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible."

80 Health Care and Legal Experts: Universal Coverage and the Presidential Candidates’ Health Care Proposals
February 01, 2008

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche...

What shall it be?  Coward McCain or Fly Boy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

tired old war hero whose time has come to fade away

living in the past

which is why the young Obama can say anything he wants

Obama mandates children be covered.

DECEMBER 07, 2007
Fact Check: ''Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan''
"Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan." First Read reported, "No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not."

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche...

still think it dumb to point out you don't cover everyone the week that Edwards who was the original author of a detailed plan drops out of the race leaving millions of undecided voters, many drawn to the idea of a universal plan

I'm an Obama supporter so I am going to drop this discussion til after Tues since attacking Hillary on this issue hurts Obama with Edwards supporters in play for two more days

"As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
-In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
-In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
-In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
-In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

our current mix of government(medicare medicaid) and private pools, and individuals without coverage  results in maximizing confusion and costs and keeps working poor out of preventative care

that is why for our nations fututre an expanded childrens program be pushed through

add it to the stimulus package

29.

seashell :-)
Mon, 02/04/08


This is how I read what Obama said about going after terrorists. Imo what he was saying was, if someone attacks the USA and is being harbored in a foreign land, and the foreign land won't do anything about it, then we will go get the terrorist where he is. I find this position totally logical, appropriate, and courageous.

Actually, mandates apply to government agencies, whether on the state or national level.  Individuals, including the operators of vehicles are subject to prohititions--actions they may not take without suffering a negative consequence.  Note that the qualification is significant.  It's not actually possible to prevent behavior, unless the individual is physically restrained.

Getting someone to do something they don't want to do (horse to water......) is impossible, period.  Which is why we have invented all kinds of incentives and set up a cadre of people (known as agents of government) who are pledged to carry out directives, some as mandates and others as options.  Indeed, the optional behaviors (matters of discretion) are a kind of compensation for the mandates.  In other words, we set up a bargain with our agents--"in exchange for doing what you must, you may choose to do others things, or not, depending on your own judgement." 

Society does issue mandates to parents as regards the welfare of children.  However, the enforcement mechanism if those mandates are not met is to charge them with either abuse or negligence and remove the children from their care--i.e. invalidate their property right in their off-spring. 

You may consider that a prohibition on one side is the same as a mandate as seen from the other, but that's not the case.  There is no mandate to drive on the right hand side of the road.  Indeed, there is no mandate to drive at all.  If you are operating a vehicle on a public road which is wide enough to accommodate traffic in two directions, you are prohibited from driving on the left, unless you are passing another vehicle, turning left or avoiding an obstacle.  You see, when there are so many exceptions, there can't be a mandate.  LOL 

s m somewhere up there above -- beside being a wonderful singer and a reminder of many good moments in my life, Joanie Baez is Latina and Barack can use help with these voters -- thanks for posting.

The Clinton campaign is a puzzlement.

At the beginning when it was obvious that the political consultants were going to make a bundle from the two major candidates, I thought that perhaps the people that hired on with Obama (veterans of the Gebhardt failure) were just in it for the money and had no real interest in electoral success.  Now it seems that, whatever the consultants intended, somebody's in charge and is making adjustments as needed in the Obama camp while Hillary is stuck in a rut.

Making mandates an issue is sheer idiocy.  Never mind that I've been arguing all along that the design of a health care program is not up to the executive.  A candidate for President using that word can't but remind a lot of people of Bush Two's claim to have a mandate after the 2004 election and be reminded of what a debacle that's been.

Somebody doesn't understand that leadership is not achieved by proclamation.

While it's true that we haven't got there yet, everyone can see that Obama has demonstrated leadership on getting out of Iraq.  The whole nation has changed its position on that issue.  And every single person recognizes that no one person can get it done.  It's a job for "we the people."  And still Hillary keeps nattering on about "I"

It's my sense that the need to keep talking about "I" is a sign of a deep-seated insecurity, or even an inferiority complex, if you will. 

Zogby/CNN California: Obama 46, Clinton 40, Gravel 1

Zogby/CNN NJ: Obama 43, Clinton 43, Gravel 1

ZogbyCNN MO: Obama 47, Clinton 42, Gravel 1

46, 47, 48 CNN s/b CSPAN my bad!!!!!

Zogby/CSPAN GA: Obama 48, Clinton 31, Gravel 2 (Obama same, Clinton up a couple, Gravel up one in GA)

View From The Battlefield: Why American Veterans Are Voting Obama

clip... Vets support Obama because he will fully fund the VA healthcare budget, will bring Priority 8 vets back into the VA healthcare system, will expand the GI Bill to allow spouses and children to be eligible to use veteran benefits and will treat Guardsmen and Reservists equally, and he will comprehensively address the pain and devastation brought onto vets by PTSD and traumatic brain injuries (TBI). 

And of critical importance, Barack Obama has pledged a "zero tolerance" policy to end veteran homelessness. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans noted in Congressional testimony that "We extend our deep gratitude to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for catapulting homeless veteran issues onto the Senate agenda ...."

It is for all these reasons that veterans support Barack Obama for president. But mostly America's veterans support Barack Obama because his support of veterans and their families is passionate and unqualified.

hi!  I see the blog is still flipping around...!

I promised myself not to 'attack' the attacks on Obama, so let me simply state how I feel about them.  I think the 2 here who seem to dislike Obama the most are being shortchanged - with all their hard work attacking Obama, they should be on the Karl Rove payroll.  if Karl's smart, he'll just sit back and let those two write the republican storyline - whether fact-based, half-truth-laced or simply hate-filled, it fits the bill for those on the right.   of course, the looneys won't bother to check the facts like Annilow and others here do - they'll just throw it all out there to see what sticks.

I understand why they don't want to SUPPORT Obama, but I'm not really certain why they are so intent on TEARING HIM DOWN.  so much for support of progressive values...

  I think the 2 here who seem to dislike Obama the most are being shortchanged - with all their hard work attacking Obama, they should be on the Karl Rove payroll.  if Karl's smart, he'll just sit back and let those two write the republican storyline - whether fact-based, half-truth-laced or simply hate-filled,

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jo you need to get out more, this is a love fest compared to what I heard at the feed store or when I stopped at the tavern for lunch and had to stop myself from starting a fight

"you ain't seen nothing yet"

best thicken your skin

It's my sense that the need to keep talking about "I" is a sign of a deep-seated insecurity, or even an inferiority complex, if you will. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama needs to keep riding the movement and avoid the trap of "I"; both candidates rise when they make it about the country's future and not themselves.

Clinton will re-calibrate if she comes out of tues a few delegates behind.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Rules_of_Engagement_for_Iraq

 I saw sometime ago that two here are against Obama no matter what..  As rd saids they are ABB. That is their choice.  It is my choice to scroll past their posts. 

I did something yesterday morning for an hour I thought I would never do.  I called another state, CA, and called independents.  Did it before the Super Bowl.  It was kind of scary, I don't think I made much progress, guess I don't have the right touch.

I'm going out today through my neighborhood today to see if anyone needs a ride to caucas.  Think I'll try the phones again in CA later when I get up my nerve.

Yesterday my son's girlfriend, after hearing HRCs statement about garnishing wages if people could not afford the payments, switched from HRC to Obama.

8:39 AM EST

fyi - new Front thread

I am going to upload the Rules of Engagement file to our DFALink site.  it's a pdf file, which may give some people trouble.

First thing I noticed in the criteria for when force could be used is a failure to differentiate between a hostile action, againt which defensive behavior is justified, and hostile intent which, of course, can't be positively identified.  That's where the slippery slope lies--in the failure to differentiate between act and intent.

While intent is critical in the criminal justice system, since there's a presumption of innocence the process of proving intent is rather lengthy.  Since there's not likely to be a lot of time in a conflict zone and defensive responses are immediate, the failure to distinguish between action and intent means that a lot of innocents are going to be harmed.

Intent is not an appropriate criterion in a disputed zone. 

I loved it yesterday when Maria Schriver quoted the Hopi's - "we are the ones we have been waiting for".

I also liked her "if Obama were a state he would be California".

9:08 AM EST

new Front thread

Jo 

 &

57.

rae hart



I saw sometime ago that two here are against Obama no matter what.. As rd saids they are ABB. That is their choice. It is my choice to scroll past their posts.



LOL, there's many more than 2, maybe it's just all the others left because they saw it was a waste of time to try to discuss facts about Obama that surely would show him to be different the blind followers.