Dean is first!

There are several right-wing unions. They do exsist. Most of their members are white males and are registered Republicans. Several marched down to ground zero after 9/11 with Bush and support the war in Iraq. I don't care what the AFL-CIO has said. Some of these union's members still support the war. In several parts of California the total union membership is over 60% registered Republican and their leaderships is mostly male and very white. They also use thuggery and mob rule to keep it that way. And they also know how to lie, cheat and play dirty-tricks.

---

Pennsylvania & the Persistence of the Race Chasm: http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2008/0...

It is wise to remember that unions win government contracts and make deals for their workers with government contractors and multi-national corporations.

This morning Hillary is talking about Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons because they have a "martyrdom complex"

She's killing two birds with one stone: (1) getting the Jewish vote; (2) fearmongering

Yesterday my dentist's secretary (who calls herself conservative) said she doesn't care who wins [in the Fall] "as long as it's not her"

Sheryl crow -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4...

Barack has some of the best looking endorsers! LOL

fred that is exactly why she made the iran comment, to scare people. every big state she comes out with some crap.

and we should "shun" the trolls.

Hillary is not getting THIS Jewish vote.  Fer sher.

In memory of our new trolls I just gave $50 to Barack Obama.

Keep it up.

mary vb,

Bruce Springsteen, John Mellancamp and now Sheryl Crow.  Wow.  Those are absolutely some of my favs.  I love Sheryl Crow.

Who cares about John Elton or whatever his name is.

FRED from Ashland OR
Wed, 04/23/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You know your ME stuff pretty good....my question to Hillary and BO for that matter, is that why hasnt Ahmadinajd killed all the Jews living in Iran............becasue they live there in peace........someone should betetr define his "wiping off the map"..........which simply i interpret as an end to the Zionist regime and a better Israel where all parties live in peace..............

The war machines wont have any of that tho............theyd be outta business

Rae

I find BOTH their foreign policies horrific.  Are they just saying these awful things to not be labeled soft on terrorism or do they mean it?

Would either one of them be able to close Pandora's Box?

As long as we have an undereducated, poorly educated, nonthinking, prejudiced, fearful, trivial, materialistic citizenry, we will have the makings of bad leaders. 

One of the most disturbing aspects, for me, in Hillary's campaigning is her high schoolish taunting, her snideness, her adolescent pandering with mean spirited comments, her smugness: all characteristics of teenagers, but when you have a population with the maturity and intellectual development of teenagers, of course it will work.

Bush's tutoring by Rove worked.

We will not have a better world, a more just, intelligent, compassionate world when we have an undereducated, adolescent citizenry and we keep them that way.  When our mores are based on accumulation, money, status, entertainment, fear of  outsiders, and the market, that's the way people will think and vote.

Please tell me I am all wet and totally wrong. 

Am I now considered a "new troll?"  LOL  

Fred:

This morning Hillary is talking about Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons because they have a "martyrdom complex"

She's killing two birds with one stone: (1) getting the Jewish vote; (2) fearmongering

She's crazy. If anything, Israel has the nukes, Iran doesn't, so it would be, more likely the other way around. 

That said, I think putzco will attack on his way out...either there or here. 

seashell wrote "I find BOTH their foreign policies horrific."

You were a fan of candidate Howard Dean's foreign policy proposals I take it.

Hillary is a Neocon.  She supported NAFTA; her husband supports the Columbia Free Trade agreement to the tune of being paid $300,000 to go to Columbia and support it.

She has voted for the war, co-sponsore the Flag Burning Amendment, said that she will attack with nuclear weapons any country attacked by Iran in the Middle East, says that we should not negotiate with Iran, etc.

Tell me she's one iota different from George Bush, John McCain and the Neocons, and what she says doesn't much matter. She'll say whatever she thinks is necessary to attain power, again, the same Neocon ethos.  Come on.  Let's get real. 

Some of the front blogs are becoming longer than college entrance essays:))

seashell,  IMHO I think Obama would use restraint, I don't think he would open Pandora's Box so to speak.  When asked the same question where Clinton answered she was willing to obliterate Iran if necessary, Obama answered he would assess the situation.

I have never heard Obama off- handendly refer to human beings as collateral damage.  I cannot state for a fact he has not. 

To be truthful sea she scares the hell out of me.  And I think she is very very cold.  Look at her eyes.

Pat in Colorado
Wed, 04/23/08

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yup...........now lets jusy say, the US and "The Big Mama" (HC) attack Iran with even a limited nuclear strike, on Irans nuke facilites...........looking on a map,and calculating wind speed and drift of said radioactive fallout it simply goes smack dab on...........American troops in Afghansitan, not to mention India, China, Japan etc....................

Time to talk to leaders people.................like BO has suggested and Ill give him credit for that.

Richard Gere is on CSPAN2 talking about Tibet.  He is speaking before a committee, committee Chairwoman is Sen Boxer.

Pat,

Well "said!" Indeed, Hillary should be in the Neocon party where she belongs.

btw, I enjoyed your critique of Hillary several threads back.

According to Obama's email I just received, Hillary claims she has raised 3.5 mil since her "win" in PA.

Probably not true, but who knows. They are still in debt.

Obama will need new money for IN and NC.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dt2std?source=feature_postpa

Please tell me I am all wet and totally wrong.

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

Wish I could. . . .  Why do suppose the Walton siblings are all for school vouchers?  And willing to put their money where their mouths is?  

Clinton answered she was willing to obliterate Iran.

Did she use the word obliterate?  I heard what she said but didn't here her use that word.  Is there a link please?

What I'm trying to say, and say it poorly, is that I don't think any of the 3 cands will be in charge of our foreign policy.  Pandora's Box is already open and the powers that be like it that way.   If we were in charge, the withdrawal would have begun and the purse would have been closed, leaving plenty in the pipeline to get us out safely.

To quote a woman friend, a polysci major:

"No matter who gets elected, *they* will sit him/her down and tell them how it's going to be."

We are now a one war-party country.  The coup was done when JFK was killed and then topped off when MLK and RFK were shot.  The good ones don't survive anymore. 

We need,perhaps, a parliament instead of one prez who now has unlimited power.  I wouldn't even want Gore or Dean to have that much power.

Tom, Dean advocated for an even-handed approach in the ME.  I liked that. 

oops,here s/b hear

I've heard BO say several times that HC is world's better than McC. And that so is he.

So...is he lying or telling the truth?

We need to rally strongly around the nominee, no matter who.  That is what Howard, HC and BO will want. 

BTW, HC wants to "scrap" NCLB...last I heard, BO wants to "fix" it.

No perfect candidate but by god, if we love this country, we have to stop McC.

SUPREME COURT!!!! 

worlds not world's

seashell - good morning america is where Hillary used the word *obliterate*. I'll let you find the link but I've seen and heard it.

sea,

A British foreign minister said Wednesday that US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons was imprudent.

Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a former United Nations deputy secretary-general and the foreign office minister responsible for Asia, questioned the comments by the New York senator, made in an interview broadcast Tuesday.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jEp2ukq1nzsx5QXn7Khdn7AqDPmg

Pat - I believe Bill was paid 800K for his Colombian trade speeches.

Thanks, rae, but that's his quote of what she said.  I would like to see the direct quote from her.

We all know how incorrectly the "wipe Israel off the map" was.  Translations and personal prejudice can be very misleading.

puddle

Think of what those millions could have done for the public schools in Arkansas. The Walton kids could easily fund all the private schools they wanted to without endangering the public school system.

These people are cr*p.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5617764&mesg_id=5617911 

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

 

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2008/04/23/nyt-all-takes-back-hillary-endorsement-asks-superdelegates-settle-race-

seashell wrote "Tom, Dean advocated for an even-handed approach in the ME.  I liked that."

It's the only policy approach to the Mideast that ever gained favor with me.  That's why I'm so confounded by your anitpathy towards Obama's Mideast foreign policy, given the mistrust expressed by the Israel lobby and other pro-Israel factions of his positions and the people advising him.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

What is she saying?  That Iran won't be able to attack Israel for 10 years?  Would we NOT be able to obliterate them NOW should we want to?

So she's saying that we'll be able to "wipe Iran off the map" in 10 years.  Not now?  Not in 5 years?  But only if they attack Israel

Gobblygook.  Trying to get votes.  Should make the Zionists happy.

She should have kept her mouth shut. 

His own words, which I've posted again today tell me who he is.  But then, he's trying to get votes too and is likely lying to do so.  If he's not lying, he's also scary.

Which is it?

Bye for now.  Things to do. 

seashell wrote "I've heard BO say several times that HC is world's better than McC...is he lying or telling the truth?"

He's unequivocally telling the truth.  Separating the concepts of who it is you support in the primary and who you would support in a general election should not be that taxing.  There must be some independents who would help usher in the McCain administration by actually decling to vote for Clinton, but these would be people for whom the results of the 2000 election were exceedingly difficult lessons to learn.

The public schools are a disappointment to conservatives because they don't insist on obedience.  What conservatives prize most of all is obedience.  And, while being obedient is attractive in that it virtually guarantees that the obedient individual is always right, in removing personal accountability for the moral tenor of an act, conservatives also remove individual restraint.  As a result, if a leader orders violent aggression and/or torture, there's nothing to make the individual think twice about doing horrific things.  What seems to be happening to our troops is that when they get out of the obedience regimen, they fall appart psychologically.  Which is why we now have over 6000 veterans killing themselves each year.  Not enough what used to be called "natural born killers."

PS  I'd like BO and the new Jewish lobby, J Street to openly present themselves to the public and then I'd like to hear a BO speech on even-handedness, with J Street backing him up.

Talking to AIPAC does not impress me. Talking to me about I/P and J Street and his solutions would.  He needs to show he has courage to actually buck the system.  He needs to stop talking and start doing and acting.

Go public with J Street and lay bare the power of AIPAC. 

Tom, please tell that to the bloggers here who say they'd never vote for HC.  They know who they are and even posted today.

Things to do..... 

Yahoo's headline has a pic of Barack with a caption *Why can't he close the deal* with five points from Ron Fournier of why not.

----------
The Clinton's are winning this traditional media narrative - *not closing the deal* and *he's a wimp*. The Obama campaign needs to have some very good surrogates on all these media outlets to counter this garbage PRONTO.

seashell wrote "If he's not lying, he's also scary."

What's this in reference to, the following statements?

"Our country needs to have national security policies that protect the interests of the American people. To do that, those policies must keep us safe and well defended against the myriad threats we face. But they cannot succeed unless they also reflect the kind of people we are, the values we share, the hopes we have, and the ideals that hold us together as a nation.

"I am worried that many of the policies the Bush Administration is pursuing today do not provide the best means of defending our interests, and do not reflect the fundamental values of our people.

"In saying this, I am respectful of the pressures our leaders face. Safeguarding our national security in this era is a very complex challenge, to which there are no easy answers. The President deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world.

"But I would not be doing my job as a citizen if I did not state my own conviction about where I believe we could do better.

"The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.

" . . . .

"What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

"Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

"I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

"Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

" . . . .

"Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their allies have murdered thousands of Americans and vowed to murder more.

"The threat they pose is imminent, constant and substantial. It cannot be deterred. Because it is global, it cannot be contained. It must be confronted until it is defeated.

"Eliminating the threat to Americans from al Qaeda and other terrorists is not simply a goal to put on a list with a lot of others. It must be the top priority of our government and the primary focus of our President."

seashell wrote "Tom, please tell that to the bloggers here who say they'd never vote for HC."

I just did.

vb wrote "The Clinton's are winning this traditional media narrative - *not closing the deal* and *he's a wimp*."

So then what's her problem?  I don't see her closing any deals.  I suppose she could complain that her money tap dried up after her first 30 losses.

Exactly, Tom. I think you'd do great on Hardball too.

  Has anyone in Washington bothered to read the latest NIE report? It said Iran abandoned its nuke program years ago. Iran's President doesn't make the call whether to attack Israel or not. The Mullahs make that decision. Doesn't this remind you of the run-up to the Iraq invasion? First you demonize the leader, then you greatly exaggerate any threat?

  The Mullahs know that if Iran attacked Israel with even 1 nuke, Israel would retaliate with 250+ nukes and reduce the Iranian population to vapor. Now add the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon into the equation. Get ready people!  Part Two of the Grand Neo-Con scheme to re-shape the Middle East could be coming to fruition now. Their Nation Building by force experiment has already borne its bitter fruit for some time now.

  The Bu$hCo crime cabal continues to listen to nobody but themselves.
 Thankfully, we can count on our Congress to stop them this time.
   Yeah, Right!!!   Get your duct tape ready.        JM in NY

The Clinton's are winning this traditional media narrative - *not closing the deal* and *he's a wimp*. The Obama campaign needs to have some very good surrogates on all these media outlets to counter this garbage PRONTO. 

mary~ Let 'em *trash talk*, makes them look like the desperados they are. I surmise Barack will stay out of the fray, brush it off his shoulders and go on to talking about what the voters want to hear, what to do about the economy, gas prices, and the war.

btw, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will never vote for HC!

Karen wrote "I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will never vote for HC!"

That's a slight improvement over Mike.  He comes to the home of Howard Dean's former campaign site to insist repeatedly that it's better not to support any Democrat for president.

Add me to the list I will never vote for her, never, ever.

The Dem leadership better wake up, if she steals this election, McCain will be Pres.  The African Americans who have come out in droves for Barack will be disallusioned, they will not faithfully vote Dem again, grassroot supporters and young people the same, Independents will go for McCain. 

Hey, we get to oppose Betrayus again.  His designation as head of the Central Command has to be approved by the Senate.

Do you think he's being kicked upstairs? 

Rocket strikes Sadr City

rae wrote "The African Americans who have come out in droves for Barack will be disallusioned, they will not faithfully vote Dem again, grassroot supporters and young people the same, Independents will go for McCain."

Apparently, so will you. 

I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.  I would not vote for Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, and the list goes on.  I will not vote for someone I do not trust, whose record shows they do not have the best interests of the citizens and the country as a priority, who lie, who cheat, who profit off public expense, who seek power, influence, and money, who are willing to violate the Constitution, whose ethical behavior is suspect or documented as unethical.

Interesting that Gail Norton, who formed a partnership with Abramoff, who was the Secretary of the Interior from Colorado, resigned for family reasons and was never held accountable in any of the Abramoff scandals, when she herself was a lobbyist for the mining companies.  Just disappeared as if she never existed.

Wonder how many others fall into the "disappeared" category: no accountability, nor responsibility, no ethics, no answering, and they usuallly, like Skeeter Libby, have the protection of their various groups, will live a high lifestyle, will enjoy the rest of their lives as free agents. 

Pat wrote "I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.  I would not vote for Joe McCarthy, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, and the list goes on."

Few people could blame you, but this is like that comprehension test question in which you're asked which of these items does not belong with the others.

Does Hillary Clinton want to foil Barack Obama's Presidential Election in Nov 2008?

Please vote this SodaHead poll and leave a comment...

HERE: http://www.sodahead.com/question/77869/?...

Thanks!

All set for tomorrow, Tom... Wings vs. Avs, should be exciting! Talked to my brother, him and his wife will be at tomorrow's game.

Or is that supposed to be "he and his wife"... :~)

Karen wrote "All set for tomorrow, Tom... Wings vs. Avs, should be exciting! Talked to my brother, him and his wife will be at tomorrow's game."

I feel like Flounder in Animal House when he said "This is going to be great!"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120753402909694027.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress on Tuesday, lawmakers from both parties will praise him for reducing violence in Iraq. President Bush will try to use his popularity to bolster support for the war. Some Republicans will muse about the general as a vice-presidential candidate.

Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, a history professor here who served two tours in Iraq, begs to differ. He argues that Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency tactics are getting too much credit for the improved situation in Iraq. Moreover, he argues, concentrating on such an approach is eroding the military's ability to wage large-scale conventional wars.

"We've come up with this false narrative, this incorrect explanation of what is going on in Iraq," he says. "We've come to see counterinsurgency as the solution to every problem and we're losing the ability to wage any other kind of war."

Pat~ Are you a hockey fan? Your Avs are playing me and Tom's Wings tomorrow in the Cup playoffs.

I just love the spin out of the Clinton camp - they are ahead with the popular vote count. You see, they're excluding all the caucus states but have counted MI and FL. Okay.

Here's Kos' take on Corzine's b.s.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/...

So my vote apparently doesn't count in Hillaryland.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_exum/2008/04/misplaced_military_priorities.html

US elections 2008: Only Obama recognises that it's ground-pounding infantrymen in Iraq who need relief, not the high-tech defence industry

The past seven years have been a painful learning experience for the US army and Marine Corps. After decades spent pretending we would never again fight a protracted counter-insurgency campaign along the lines of the Vietnam war, the US military has found itself in two such conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear end to either in sight.

The intellectual response to Iraq and Afghanistan, however, has been impressive. Stung by ineffective or counter-productive tactics and strategy that cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military went back to the drawing board to produce a new counter-insurgency doctrine that places the security and welfare of the population at the centre of the mission rather than the destruction of the enemy. Has a military ever before enlisted Human Rights Watch to help it create doctrine? Surely not. The US military, then, deserves praise for its humility and impressive learning curve.

No Tom, I won't vote for McCain ever either.

Guess I'll vote for Gravel.  Oh well he was an AK Senator.

Karen wrote "Pat~ Are you a hockey fan? Your Avs are playing me and Tom's Wings tomorrow in the Cup playoffs."

I know Pat is a Wings fan all the way.  

Hi Karen and Tom,

I am a sports idiot, know nothing about any, but my son plays hockey, and both sons love the AVs.

How does Hillary become the exception to the above mentioned perpetrators, Tom?

No, you don't have to say.   I do understand your reasoing, certainly used it to vote for Kerry, but Hillary scares me, Tom.  I'm not sure she has good judgment, don't think she's honest, think she will continue the policies that are bringing this country down. I really really see no difference between her and the Neocons, between her and John McCain. Both lie, pander, insert themselves into the middle of power brokering, and yes, we saw it as far back as the Howard Dean campaign.

 Seashell should rent the DVD Firda, the story of Frida Kahlo the artist or get it from the library.  It's amazing, and it would be interesting to hear her assessment of it.

Hillary is not getting THIS Jewish vote.  Fer sher

===============

Good to hear - let's hear it for the promised land.

Rockridge Nation

Keeping the Community Alive Created by rockridge_staff (Rockridge Institute staff member)

Join a new discussion to help build the future site of this vibrant community. There's much to be done and we need your commitment, vitality, and passion.

...read the full post and join this new google group here: http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/arch...

Obama has another superdeleate.  wOOt.

Audra Ostergard from Nebraska.

I have a feeling they are going to start coming in.

s/b Frida.

rae wrote "No Tom, I won't vote for McCain ever either."

I didn't suppose you would.  None of the Nader voters in 2000 voted for Bush, either.  They just helped elect him.

Voting for Gravel takes all the courage and thoughtfulness of voting for Mickey Mouse, as hundreds of people do every election cycle.  Apparently 126,000 hopeless people voted for Ron Paul in the Pennsylvania primary, a person who's a bigger pariah in his own party than even the presumptive nominee.  You have to follow your conscience, but at least examine it thoroughly before you make your decision.

Another super d for Big Barry today - that's two today.



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4...

You know your ME stuff pretty good....my question to Hillary and BO for that matter, is that why hasnt Ahmadinajd killed all the Jews living in Iran............

==================

Interesting and good point.  There was a recent story about the Jews in Iran today, most of whom are very well off.  They were invited with lots of perks to come to Israel [by the politicians there] and they refused.  It seems the right wing Revisionist Zionists there need more PR material to keep their fear agenda popular.

Avi Shlaim was motivated to write the true revision of the popular revisionist history of Israel The Iron Wall  because his family lived in peace with their muslim brethren in Iraq until 1948 afterwhich they lost all they had when they were driven out by anti-semite sentiment.  They went to Israel where he served in the IDF.

Pat wrote "Hillary scares me, Tom.  I'm not sure she has good judgment, don't think she's honest, think she will continue the policies that are bringing this country down. I really really see no difference between her and the Neocons, between her and John McCain. Both lie, pander, insert themselves into the middle of power brokering, and yes, we saw it as far back as the Howard Dean campaign."

I categorically agree with every statement reiterated above except that she's no different than John McCain or the neocons.  I wouldn't consider it an onerous exercise to list the ways that she and McCain are different but, regardless of that, the difference between a Clinton presidency and a McCain presidency would be enormous beyond description.

Steve Kornacki with the New York Observor has written a thoughtful piece on Obama. It's a fascinating read.

http://www.observer.com/2008/g-o-p-just-...

mary vb, you beat me to it.  I was so excited I didn't check upthread.

Tom,  I honestly like Gravel.

the difference between a Clinton presidency and a McCain presidency would be enormous beyond description.

If you're talking about Bill ducking in and out of hallways with interns, then yeah, it would be enormously different.

Some Questions To Ponder:

- What do you feel the underlying values of thuggery and the lynch mob are?

fear and greed (the lack of self-love)

- Are criminals that lack empathy for thier victums and that use violence conservatives?

no, they're just criminals.

- Where do you presently see conservative violence and brutality manifesting itself?

In red America and all over the world.

- How have conservative values failed?

Their destiny is set-up fail. Even when it appears that they may have succeeded. That is why they need all those think tanks.

set-up fail s/b set-up to fail

rae wrote "Tom,  I honestly like Gravel."

That doesn't bother me, but I'm not addressing that.  Ralph Nader is truly a hero of mine, but I'm not voting for him for president under any circumstances.  I could and would, but I'm not.  There is really a lot at stake.

Hillary is playing the fear card. 

 playing fear of terror with The Right

and fear of losing in the Fall [with Obama] with The Left

Did Hillary raise 10MM in the past 24 hours with 50,000 new donors? Astounding! Obama had 200,000 new donors in 24 hours. LOL - Don't know the totals but he's still beating her.

Actually, rae, you beat me. I typed it and hit submit and there you were. It's because our blog is whacky.

Karen wrote "If you're talking about Bill ducking in and out of hallways with interns, then yeah, it would be enormously different."

I'm not but as far as McCain's marital fidelity is concerned, I don't think you've made a very good case regarding any substantive distinction.

New Book Coming June 2nd!

Order it HERE: http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Understand-21st-Century-18th-Century/dp/0670019275

someone should betetr define his "wiping off the map"..........which simply i interpret as an end to the Zionist regime and a better Israel where all parties live in peace..............

The war machines wont have any of that tho............theyd be outta business

=======================

I'm not even sure if the quote is accurate and/or what the context was, if it was....but what they are talking about (and they have often elaborated) is the "State of Ethnic and Religious Jews Only" is what they want to be eliminated, not necessarily by force or violence.

This is not any different to those in Israel on the middle-Right and Right, (which is a majority living there today, no thanks to the cycle of violence)

People in Israel, Politicians,  have been condemned, called Nazis, etc. simply for calling for a "land of all its people" which for many is code for the destruction of the "Jewish State" not Israel per se, necessarily, but the status quo religious and ethnic State of Israel, which to most Zionists today, defines the Jewish homeland.

bbl - got an errand

6:02 PM EDT

If Hillary wins the dem nomination, my wife and I have already discussed it and agreed that we would sit out the general election come Nov.

rdorgan wrote "If Hillary wins the dem nomination, my wife and I have already discussed it and agreed that we would sit out the general election come Nov."

This disappoints me as much as hearing that if Obama wins the nomination, Clinton's army of primary supporters are going to boycott the general election.

new thread

Our family is still undecided what to do if Hillary gets the nod.

She is one of the most dishonest people to run in a long time.  She may even be worse then Bubba?  She would be down in the sewer with Nixon.

McCain, who I used to support and campaign for, is flat out nuts.  A McCain presidency would make us long for "W".

Some choices eh?  Someone who is totally dishonest or someone totally nuts.

The key is to get a veto-proof, Lieberman proof Senate to limit the damage either of them would do.

Hillary's platform, although inferior to Obama's, is superior in every way to the Repub platform.  There is also the matter of the three certain Supremes that will be dominated. 

Hllary with all her faults and we detest her deeply, will still appoint judges that are more likely to protect our civil rights then McCain.   My family will probably pull the lever for the Dem nominee.  But if Hillary is running, we will not participate in the election.  I will not give her one thin dime, hold meetups, or talk to voters in her behalf.  If Obama wins the nomination then I will do all of the above and more with passion.

That may be the real difference.  If Hillary is the nominee then a lot of folks will take the campaign off and McCain probably wins.  RvW goes away, the economy rapidly spirals downward, we escalate wars and cause new ones in the ME, and the military remains broken.

The key is to get 60 Dems in the Senate to constrain both of them.

Tom, what would Clinton do that would be good for the country?  How would she be different substantially from McCain?  Let me add the caveat that she's shown no ability whatsoever to bring consensus on health care and a variety of other issues.  She's deeply tied into the corporate/military/government collusion and complex as is McCain; she has voted with this administration the majority of the times, sees herself as tough, militaristic, has done little for the average American though she's claimed she's done a lot; walked off with artifacts and gifts from the White House (reminds me of Faulkner's Snopes family), has been involved with corporate folks who were felons, and on and on.

What one good thing would she do that McCain wouldn't? And health care and withdrawal is off the table because she's not shown any ability to bring consensus or show she could and would do it.

rdorgan wrote "If Hillary wins the dem nomination, my wife and I have already discussed it and agreed that we would sit out the general election come Nov."

This disappoints me as much as hearing that if Obama wins the nomination, Clinton's army of primary supporters are going to boycott the general election.

+++

Tom -

She has acted like a republican in her and Bill's and their surrogates' attacks on Obama.  A year ago, my wife and I would have voted for her if she got the dem nomination.

Well, too much has happened these last few months for us to forgive her.  I've never felt as much anger towards a presidential candidate as I do against her and her campaign.

hi there folks.  I'm  disappointed to see yet another thread devoted to bashing 'conservatives'.  I am sick and tired of all these labels and blanket statements - they seldom 'fit' and they don't accomplish anything except to widen the divisions and to make some people feel superior.

words matter.  I applaud Edwin's conversation about progressive values, but this bashing others takes it too far, imo.  this is no way to heal the human world we live in.

Hillary can't win this, she can only steal it.   if the SDs were going to break for her they would have done it already.  I expect some will wait until most states have voted, but I do believe we'll see a strong showing from them for Obama after NC and IN, perhaps sooner. if her supporters want to throw more money her way to keep her going, so be it.  it will help the late states get some of this campaign love! 

I can't stand Hillary - haven't trusted her for years.  but I will compromise my principals to vote for her if she gets the nod.  the alternative - McCain or staying home - would be disastrous.  she may not do much better, but I do believe a dem President will help Congress get back to work.  and I do think this long campaign will bring new blood and a good majority of dems to Congress. 

so you can call me a 'caver' 'cause that's what I am.  I seldom compromise on my beliefs and good instincts, but this is one time I'll do it because it's too important to let my ego be my guide.

McCain will vote to remove more as our rights.  He has already admitted to appointing judges who want to overturn RvW.

There is probably no one on this blog who despises Hillary more then me.  I actively supported Repubs over Bubba and she may be worse then he is.

When I have a difficult question or issue that has many facets, the question I try to answer is how are children affected?

Which president would be better for our kids and grandkids?  We owe those who follow us at least a shot of living in a better world then we are.

Who will be a better president for our kids? 

That is a tough one and we can debate that forever, but at his point in time, Hillary wins out over McCain because of the Democratic platform in general.

95.  Jo*in*Vermont,

 this is a discussion about values.  Conservatives openly base all their polices on values,  no health care, no health care for children, people dieing in needless wars and occupation,  people being tortured as we speak,  people dieing as we speak from lack of health care. etc. etc. 

Conservatives mentioned their values and principles  at every turn and at every one of their  primary speeches. 

David Brooks just mentioned on the News Hour, ' the flag pin question on the last debate is a VALUES issue!'  Did anyone say  "what the hell are you talking about?  what kind of values do conservative really have?"

 'I am sick and tired of ' no one taking this topic up and instead handing it over to the conservatives on a silver platter. The media, democrats, liberals, progressives ..etc..

Sorry, but the conversation will no longer be one way..   it's now time to start questioning Failed Conservative Values.  If their values can't hold up to scrutiny.. we'll, maybe they should find some that do. I'm not promoting; name calling, demeaning, superiority, put downs, but a real conversation, some real questioning. Which means we have to question progressive values as well.

You don't heal brutality by sweeping it under the rug. I'm thinking democrats have a codependent relationship with conservatives. 'If we just love them more, maybe they will not be so self-centered and violent.  I think it's time for a divorce.  It's time to stop the petty bickering and move out and make an emotional and independent break."  Sure, show by example, but call it like you see it as well.

The conversation is now opened