Captain's Quarters -

Obama & Edwards have had a really bad couple of weeks; neither of them offer our nation anything better than John Kerry did. Hillary has opened up a large gap between herself and the rest of the Democrat field; this for good reason, as all others have been exposed as rank amateurs.

I find Obama a likable guy; not ready for this stage. I find Edwards a disgusting rat "ambulance chaser" type of guy; one whom will never be ready for this stage. Hillary will continue to increase the gap between her and her opponents, as she will not step in it as deeply, and she is surrounded by seasoned veterans.

Any candidate who preaches a Totalitarian system, a Communist system, a Socialist system, on the people of the United States of America; well anybody who is dumb enough to "go there" is simply not ready for this stage. On the other hand; any candidate who preaches the American Constitution & Bill of Rights; the American free markets; the American freedoms and liberties; the American health care system; well, that is a candidate that will open up minds and hearts...

The impression that John Edwards is a wind-up, controlled and sent forth daily by his wife, deserves some attention from Cindy Sheehan's handlers whom might be able to steal him away from Elizabeth.
The loonies would have a field day with their own Presidential and V.P. candidates.

Lets see. Barak will meet with all the thug dictators of the world in the first year of his presidency, but cannot handle more than 8 info-mercial/debates in four months. Not to mention, Barak is going to clean up Washington, DC despite reports that:

"About 60% of his funds have come through the maxed-out donations of $2,300,
which is the magic number of a bundler."

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketfeatures/10374693.html

That's right, he doesn't take registered lobbyist money, just checks for $2,300 from guys like Tony Rezko. Note that Barak counts sales of Obama bumper stickers, T-shirts and coffee mugs as campaign contributions and that 60% number becomes even more significant. What would the percentage of $2,300 contributions be if sales of Obama's campaign merchandise was excluded?

Still, St. Barak is not to be taken lightly for it is simply hard to imagine what this guy would have to do to get bad press. Clinton 1.0 played snake charmer with an intern and a soiled dress was necessary for our less than skeptical press corp to question his denial. St. Barak can say or do anything and the legacy press will never say anything that might reach the Oprah-fortified bubble that keeps out bad thoughts.

Edwards is a different story. WSJ blew him out of the water on Friday. He is road kill. That Edwards is reduced to embracing Michael Moore's glistening jewels only serves to show how few friends the Silky Pony has right about now.

Edwards is proving with each day that he's an empty suit.

Obama is a wonderful, and inspiring speaker, but he's a fool when it comes to foreign policy (reminds me of back in 00 when they asked W foreign leaders then asked what country they led)-DARE TO ASK OBAMA who runs Qatar, or Ukraine, or Kenya).

That leaves the ordained nominee: Sen Clinton-a woman who has managed to actually get half the country to hate her...before she's even gotten the nomination.

How will Democrats wrestle with the idea that a Clinton for President is like voting for W?

She had better intel than W re Iraq (coulda just rolled over and said, "Honey, is Saddam really a threat?"

She promoted the invasion-just like President Bush

She authorized the invasion-just like President Bush and a lotta Democrats

She supported the war0just like President Bush

She called for more troops last fall when the ISG report came out (and in December, President Bush sent more troops)

Now, she opposes the war, pledges to win it (ala Nixon), and has also said she'll keep tens of thousands of American troops there to train the ISF, protect Iraq, and hunt Al Queda (ie, their mission for the last 4yrs)....just like President Bush

So, for Democrats, is it

empty suit panderer extraordinaire
vs
inspirational leader who is a foreign policy fool
vs
woman every right of center already hates who takes action on the war that is in effect identical to President Bush's?

Good choices dems

How can a Democrat oppose the war, and vote for any of those three-particularly the front running George Bush with a D by his name?

Who runs North Korea's health care system? Kaiser Permanente? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods?

Without a Micheal Moore movie informing him, Edwards may never know.

Who runs Bartertown?

Master Blaster runs Bartertown

PLEASE make sure to put the correct DVD in when briefing Sen Edwards on natural resources, alternative energy solutions, greenhouse gases, etc. I can just see him at the next debate demanding that we strive to get our energy independence from that short little guy.

Scott, because they know that Hildabeast is a power hungry, totalitarian socialist at heart...they could do a lot worse than her on "domestic policy". Besides, they can "work" her once she gets into office. Who's to say she's not just "talking tough" to get the "centrist vote"...? Wouldn't be the first time a Clinton said what needed to be said...with no intention of carrying it out.

Oh I readily agree that she could be pandering away, but it's kinda odd to pander to the right when seeking the nomination from the left. Besides, her past actions on Iraq demonstrate that she takes leans towards the necessary and/or inevitable when it comes to stuff like Iraq. There's a HUGE misnomer out there that is was a war of choice, when the only choice was how long it could be put off. Bush Sr passed the buck, the Clinton passed the buck, then W blew it off until 91202, and even then he didn't do it for another half a year. The choice was in waiting until "Blessed July" or something similar vs., putting Saddam's regime on a dual diplomatic/military course to the end. She knew that. Her hubby knew that. Dems on the Sen Intel Com knew that. The only one who pretends he knew better was the maple syrup king/Presidential wannabe Gov Dean who fueled the anti-war in Iraq movement in May 02-fully 4 months before W began the runup to war. Point here is that Sen Clinton surely is a panderer, but I chose those words carefully earlier, "in effect." When she rants about Iraq, and demands action on Iraq, she does it consistent with what W does.

I also have a tough time believing that the "anti-war" folks will just stomach voting for a W-lite on Iraq to get a domestic agenda of higher taxes, and lesser healthcare. Nah, take W and Iraq off the table, and the Democratic Party has no core "draw" causes to get people to the polls.

Besides, wouldn't it be hilarious if they finally made judgment in her Sen campaign fraud case after she got the nom? Oh gawd I'd laugh so hard.

swabjockey and Scott,

I think you are both attributing WAAAAAAY too much intelligence to the average dem voter! You're talking as if they think hard about their candidates' positions and then make rational choices at the voting booth. Wake up! These are people who thought John Kerry would be a great president! They're morons. They'd trip the lever for Hitler if he said, "I hate George Bush und I vill giff you free health care."

So true too often

I hope she gets the nomination. Seriously. It'll make the R/D debates AMAZING. I can't wait until she goes off about how the war was "a mistake" or that there was bad intel or we were "misled" because as soon as she chimes away with those leftist sizzlers, whoever the R nom is can just ask how she could have been so wrong with her husband giving personal intel assessments, etc.

I love it when I hear people rant about the decision to invade now. The first thing they typically go for is the "so where's the WMD" thing. Rather than debate it, I just reply, "Better ask Sen Clinton before you vote for her."

Of coarse Docjim is right. I would also add; far too many people who vote strictly Democrat, do so based on "which party is going to give me more stuff for free". Millions of people with their hands out at all times demanding more from our government; the Democrats are always there offering them more rather than trying to assist them to "get off the freakin couch"....

Keemo and Dr J,

Relax shipmates! I'm wide awake, believe me...'specially when contemplating the Hildabeast being my "Commander in Chief"...

My lovely wife of 20+ years is one of those who will be pulling the "D" leaver even if it is Hitler himself (fresh from his 50+ year vacation in Brazil). I’m sure her reason for doing it is “complex” because I know she’s not an idiot…she married me didn’t she…? [Well…I suppose that’s not really the best bona fides for being a “non-idiot”.]

Even though I'm not a Repub, I usually feel it is my patriotic duty to vote in order to "off set" her dhimmicrat vote...but your Repubs make that a more difficult task than it needs to be...

Well, geez, guys, maybe Edwards was confused about which Cuba they were talking about. I mean, if there are two Americas, there's got to be at least two Cubas, right?

An explanation for Edwards to use: "No, the movie I saw was Sicko, you know, the Alfred Hatchcock movie with the woman getting killed in the shower at the Beets Motel."

Edwards is a moron, arrogant and a fraud - bad combination. One that your current President shares.

I like Bidon first, but nobody else does appearently since he polls under 5-percent everywhere.

Obama i like - yes he does lack experience - but he is smart and I think he could "learn on the job" if need be. MOST importantly he is GENUINE (or at the least appears so).

Billary is a FRAUD - this Liberal will NEVER vote for her. I don't give a shit how experienced she is, she is one of the Dynasty and part of the broken "system". Christ isn't anyone else tired of the 20 yrs Dynasty of Clush. If they aren't then they have serious problems in understanding that a healthy Democtaric Republic does not grow with Monarchs rulig over it.

I'll support ANYONE who is GENUINE - I no longer care about policy positions, the future of our Nation is at stake and the threat is the rot from within!!

Who I will vote for if given a chance:

Dem:

Bidon
Obama

Rep:

Paul
Buckabee

..................

the rest are fake frauds and offer nothing. there was a day I would have included McCain above - but he sold out 4 yrs ago.

gaffo,

I never thought I'd say this, but "cheers for a good post"...

Oh, and I agree that it is time to rid this country of the Clinton-Bush dynasty. Enough now...

My personal favorites are:

Democrats:
Waiting for one to appear (Lieberman?)

Republicans:
1. Giuliani
2. Romney
3. Duncan

" it's kinda odd to pander to the right when seeking the nomination from the left."

Not when you are arrogant enough to think you have already won the Democrat-IC Nominaton and are now running to win the General election!

which is Billary's mindset.

Billary is a Neocon - that is why so many on the "Right" love her foriegn policy.

Neocons have been utterly discredited via Iraqnam - the fact that the Dems are too dumb to see her for what she is is not good for the future of this Nation.

gaffo,
At the end of the day you will vote for Hillary, but you talk an....interesting game.

thanks for the compiment keemo:

Lieberman - in all honesty he is NOT a DIMO as we Liberals love to lable him. That label is soley due to his blind support for Iraqnam and is not an accurate label since ALL his other policy positions are solidly Democratic ones. He is a Neocon and that is enough for me to not support him - regardless of any and all other issues he and I may agree on.

Guiliani - I may give him a chance - but he needs to get beyond sound bites for me to consider him and he ain't done that yet. He seems ignorant of that the 1st and 2nd amendments are - he refers to one and talks about the other! this does not show much knowledge of the BoR - a basic requirement of a President.

Romney=Clinton: polster based fake fraud flipflop. No way I'd vote for this empty pander suit. For Abortion before against it, for Gay Marraige before against it (and probably a million other "convictions" (ya - like this man would know what that is!!) all within days time). a sociapathic mentality - a camillion(sp) who will show you hat youwant to see to "win" and hold no true beliefs in ANYTHING. We had 8-yrs of such a man (Clinton), we can't afford another 8 yrs of this type of person (this includes Billary BTW another polster-conviction based "true beleiver").

know nothing about Duncan Hunter - he may be good or bad.

I love Ron Paul (of which i only policy wise argee on with 1/2 of his positions) because he refused to play the "game" and remains to just be himself. He had years to sellout in Congress and has not done so. Check his record.

LOL!

I like this person or that. I want this person or that one....who you LIKE and who you get to vote for are different

Will anti-war Democrats vote for Sen Clinton when she wins the nomination? Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich....pipedream players who are in it to get a message out and into the 08 platform. That's it. That's not all bad, but it's foolish to believe that the likes of Kucinich etc have a chance. Enjoy and root for them all you want. Contribute time, money, etc., but in the end Democrats-particularly anti-war Democrats will have to come up with some pretty interesting excuses to be anti-war and vote for someone who is Bush Lite on Iraq. My guess is those excuses will further prove that most opposition to the war (especially the post-Saddam war) is really opposition to Bush, and the opposition is just the catalyst for that opposition. Why else would an anti-war Dem vote for Bush Lite/Billary/Sen Clinton in 2008?

"gaffo,
At the end of the day you will vote for Hillary, but you talk an....interesting game."

Don't tell me who I'll vote for!

FYI up until 2004, hte last vote I cast nationaly was for Ron Paul for Libertarian President in 1988.

In 1992 I like Songas - saw Clinton as a pandering fake. did not like Bush Sr. dissinterest in our economy at the time (though I loved his foreign policy - brilliant in fact! - his dissinterest in our recession at the pissed me off!! so I looked to Songass to support). I liked Dole too - but he faded after NH primary.

what did i do? I DID NOT VOTE thats what.

1996: Still hated Clinton (his corruption with the China Coffees and his China 1st policy over that of Taiwan REALLY pissed me off).Thought (mistakenly in hindsight) that Dole was "too old" (he was 72 - problem was that he ACTED old and crotchety and made him seem even older to me). Again I did not vote.

2000: We had one candidate on the ballet on my State "Bore" or was it "Gush"?

both I did not like. I wanted to vote for McCain or Nader. Nader was NOT on the ballet and write-ins were NO LONGER COUNTED!! (you have to question what is happening to our Republic when a State in the 1980's had 5!! political parties on the ballet AND counted Write-ins - and that SAME STATE now only has 2 (or it is really one?) Party and no longer allow WriteinS!!)........something rotten in Demark Bubba.

2004 - after Iraqnam I got so angry that I held my nose and voted for the Fraud Kerry (john - not Bob who was less fake) Liked Clark and he won our State - but was we know lost the primary.

now that I'm convinced that Iraqnam is "lost" (surge is not sustainable and we cannot force Iraqis to love each other) - I do not feel I have a duty to vote for another Fraud to "stop" Bush's Neocon nighmare of foolishness and can sit this one out too..........

I would like to participate in our Republic - but it seems the system does not want me to.

the American Sheople need to wake up and rise up and demand to "clean house" - before it is too late.

Geniune is all I ask and if that is too much then I will not promote the broken system by participating (supporting) it.

Scott,

Of coarse you are right; however it is nice to have a conversation with gaffo, rather than a war of words for a change. I respect the honesty gaffo brought forward with the above referenced comment. The honesty is a welcomed breath of fresh air, and is a deviation from typical Liberal talking points.

Keemo, not so fast...

This is the same troll that hasn't seen a socialistic program he doesn't like...

Yet he says he "likes" Ron Paul? Ron Paul is highly endorsed by the John Birch Society. He's their poster boy...He is the antithesis to the socialists (with the exception of "Iraq issue")

You're reaching to say the troll is "being honest". But I for one do appreciate your sentiment....some feel that even a nasty little troll needs to be thrown a bone once in a while.

Great Gaffo. Kudos to you for your independence from the lemming-like mindset of modern progressives/former liberals. My question isn't individual-oriented, and it remains, however, unaddressed.

Edwards has proven to be an empty, pandering suit. That which made him viable, potential, and close to the nomination in 04 is gone (back in 04 he was the ONLY candidate who carried RINO, DINO, centrist and indy votes in primaries; ie, he was the only one viable in a general). Now he's bending over for the far left.

Obama's a great speaker, but clueless on foreign policy and when you've a red phone on your desk, or a nuclear football in your shadow at all times....it's not really a subject that should be learned on the job (let's try to learn at least that much from history).

That leave Sen Clinton as the nominee, and it remains....how can anti-war Democrats claim to be anti-war and at the same time vote for Bush Lite/Billary/Sen Clinton? They can't. To do so is to admit that the anti-war theme is just a catalyst for Bush hate. It can't be ok for a Dem, but unacceptable for a Rep as an issue. Nu-uh.

I'm pleased to see Gaffo (and we all see ourselves as individuals) defining the uniqueness by which votes are cast and support is given, but as a demographic, it's going to be hard for Dems to win with Edwards giving up that which made him viable in 04, with Obama lacking a specific, experienced, foreign policy team and strategy, and with Hillary's CLIMBING negatives.

Let's take a lesson from the 06 race. Dems promised a New Direction. They lied. They misled. They never had a strategy. They demanded more troops. Bush sent em, then they demanded a withdrawal but refused to take action towards one. Dems approval re Congress went from high 50's to bouncing under 20 in just 5 months. 02, 04, 06 were all decided by Nat Sec (including Iraq) as the core draw issue. If Dems continue with the Iraq policy dance that they have now (one that only 3% of Americans approve of!!!), then they lose the Iraq draw issue. They can't compete against W since he's not running, so ABB is off the table. Add in Hillary's unfavorables and her near parroting of Bush Iraq policies...it's gonna be tough for a Dem.

Edwards should have stayed the man he was in 04. He caved to the left; to that party special interest, and he's losing. If they ran the 2004 Edwards in 2008, Dems could run the table.

swabjockey wrote (August 19, 2007 9:31 AM):

... I usually feel it is my patriotic duty to vote in order to "off set" her dhimmicrat vote...but your Repubs make that a more difficult task than it needs to be...

AMEN! When I think that tripping the "R" lever means supporting the likes of Ted Stevens and Trent Lott... excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth... SanFran Nan and Dingy Harry may be the stupidest pair to ever run the Congress, but Fat Denny and Limp Wrist Frist are a damned close second.

As I often write, you get the government you deserve. What the HELL did we ever do to deserve the band of assclowns we've got???

Bah.

"As I often write, you get the government you deserve. What the HELL did we ever do to deserve the band of assclowns we've got???"

We gave in/give in to the fear, frustration, and hate that political enemies spew on us to have their way upon each other.

Understood swabby; and BTW, I feel for your situation with the wife... Thanks for your dedication to counseling out her vote....

Once again Scott; good points all...

What the HELL did we ever do to deserve the band of assclowns we've got???

You voted for them. Or you voted against someone on your own side because he/she didn't agree with every jot and tittle of your personal doctrine, Welcome to politics,

"Any candidate who preaches a Totalitarian system, a Communist system, a Socialist system, on the people of the United States of America" -- aka the Alinsky Acolyte from Arkansas

Boy, I'm enthused.

As a newly registered "Decline To State" voter here in CA, they say I can choose which party to participate with in the Primary.

I'm going Dem, and John-Boy is my man!

BTW, when you beat on an empty-suit, does it sound like a drum?

WOW alot of stuff here Scott:

"That leave Sen Clinton as the nominee"

Huh? there is Dodd, Bidon and Richardson = all have as much and more experience than Clinton. not saying they will win, just saying Billary is not the ONLY one with experience.

Give me break! Bidon has been in the Senate/house since 1972? and on many high ranking Sanate panels - most adept at foreign affairs policy.

", and it remains....how can anti-war Democrats claim to be anti-war and at the same time vote for Bush Lite/Billary/Sen Clinton? They can't."

Well sadly they can and probably will - with a straight face too. Its called hypocracy and Americans have a love/hate relationship with it. they love it when it suits them personally and hate it when it hurts them personally. I do know that I will NOT however.

" To do so is to admit that the anti-war theme is just a catalyst for Bush hate."

nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush hate goes deeper than Iraqnam. It is linked to Nam due to his Neoconjob and pandering to Cheney's PNAC gang and Office of Special Plans, but goes deeper to Bush's very personality - that of what many here would call "strength of character" (stubborness other call it), "conviction of morals" (pandering and/or messiah complex (e.i. God told him to invade Iraq - the New Crusade). Where you guys see a strong assurtive leader who is protecting you with his solid convictions and resolution in the face of a weak kneed Legislature and corrupt Courts - we see a petty arrogant childlike immature man-child with a "my way or the highway" attitude and a God Complex.

a matter of perspective:

and yes million of us do hate (loathe in fact) Bush, both is policy (really 90-percent Iraqnam/Neocon gunboat democracy-reforming the middleeast-pre-emptive war-everthying changed after 911 crappola), and his personality.

but we hate the Neocon policy too - thus we hate William Kristol, Lewis Libby. Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney.

there are around 20 of em - all are/were in positions of power and influence and used 911 to pormote their Neocon folly of invading every tinpot dictator rule ME nation on earth. Most are now gone - but those that remain are still screeming at the top of their lungs that they were right and that the "world changed after 911" (rove just said this this morning on Meet the Press!! - what hogwash).

I'll welcome the Paleolithic hanks of Bush Sr's day when they return. A policy based upon realism and pregatism and not pie in the sky childlike folly if "transforming the middle east". THAT is not our job - that is up to THEM.

"I'm pleased to see Gaffo (and we all see ourselves as individuals) defining the uniqueness by which votes are cast and support is given, but as a demographic, it's going to be hard for Dems to win"

No - dems are a shoe in - soley due to Iraq. That alone is the only reason the Republicans are the minority party in Congress.

if not for Iraqnam - Republicans would today be enjoying year 15 of their 40 rule.

sad but true, Bush got arrogant and instead of saying "mission accomplished we ridded Al Qaeda and Taliban from Afghanistan the military war on terror is over, and law enforcement branch will now contain any new terrorist threat", he decided to take out Saddam - who had no link to Osoma Bin Forgotten or 911.

And the Republican lemming party followed off the cliff - EVERY EVERY FEW said "whow now! we got Al Quada in Afghansitan war's over, whats this Iraq talk? I didn't sign up for this bait and switch!"

"with Edwards giving up that which made him viable in 04, with Obama lacking a specific, experienced, foreign policy team and strategy, and with Hillary's CLIMBING negatives."

not sure how "viable" Edwards ever was - I never liked him, thought Kerry was smarter even back then (and that ain't saying much). He plalyed the "good old boy stich(sp)" - kinda like Clinton. Transparent as glass, but I guess many fall for it. Buckabee on the otherhand just IS a good old boy. or he has me fooled!

"Let's take a lesson from the 06 race. Dems promised a New Direction. They lied."

not really - they did try a few things. only their majority is too small to affect change, the other side blocks most of what they tried to pass -esp. Iraq policy.
They got minimum wage passed - an easy thing to do when most Americans supported it. It forced enough Republicans to support it to get it passed.

"They misled. They never had a strategy."

I don't see any "misleading" from Dem. Congress.
True, they do lack a strategy WRT Iraq. but in all honesty as long as the President remains the President and the Republicans in congress continue to block the Dems WRT Iraqnam, the dems DON'T REALLY NEED A STRATEGY - the albatross remains in the Republican's court. And at the end of the Day - when Iraq fails even more in a years time - it will be the Republicans in the hotseat trying to explain thier votes for that "war".

"They demanded more troops. Bush sent em,"

LOL, nice revision of history there Scott

"then they demanded a withdrawal but refused to take action towards one."

Huh? they VOTED - Republicans block the vote!!
No way they are going to block FUNDING (or even try) ! that would be political suicide - you know that!

Nope - politically it works well for the Dems to vote to end the war while the Repulbicans get tied to the Albatross voting to stay in Iraqnam. This way the Dems vote as they said they would and also know that that vote will not pass and similarly know that the blocking will hurt the Republicans in Congress!! 2 for the price of 1.

good political tactic really.

"Dems approval re Congress went from high 50's to bouncing under 20 in just 5 months. 02, 04, 06 were all decided by Nat Sec (including Iraq) as the core draw issue."

This is true - Congressional approvel ratings is VERY VERY low - but it is low for ALL in Congress, not just the Dems.

And again, as long as Iraqnam remains Nam - the Congressional Dems ain't going to be kicked out, even if their approval goes to 1-percent.

"If Dems continue with the Iraq policy dance that they have now (one that only 3% of Americans approve of!!!), then they lose the Iraq draw issue."

NO! they CANNOT lose on the Iraq issue. Bush and his Party have gone out of there way to make it "Thier" war - Repubicans sink or swim over Iraq.

Dems are not even in that equation.

"They can't compete against W since he's not running, so ABB is off the table."

Not relivant - since Iraqnam will still be on the table.

Bush's bady.

"Add in Hillary's unfavorables and her near parroting of Bush Iraq policies...it's gonna be tough for a Dem."

not really - they will just be hypocritical and vote for her as if she was always against the Iraq War.

"Edwards should have stayed the man he was in 04. He caved to the left; to that party special interest, and he's losing. If they ran the 2004 Edwards in 2008, Dems could run the table."

I think Edwards was a dud from the beginning - JMO about him.

Commenting on all the misinformation Gaffo's posted would be mega, so I'll cut to the chase.

Sen Clinton is most likely going to get the nomination.

Add to that:
"Not relivant - since Iraqnam will still be on the table. Bush's bady.
"Add in Hillary's unfavorables and her near parroting of Bush Iraq policies...it's gonna be tough for a Dem."
not really - they will just be hypocritical and vote for her as if she was always against the Iraq War."

Iraq will not be on the table as
1) the surge is a temporary increase in troop levels so troop levels will reduce in 08 leaving D/R both claiming success
2) your reference to PNAC neocons was funny since it was the Clinton's DLC that spawned the so-called neocon agenda as described by the PNAC. Again, since Hillary's taken the same positions as W on all the big turns re Iraq post 91202, all a rational person needs to do is show the less than 45% of the nation that might be willing to vote for her that she's just a continuation of the Bush admin Iraq policy, and that should be enough to push Any Republican But Clinton over the top.

btw, no revisionist history there. Sen Clinton, Sen Biden, Sen Reid, Gov Dean, even Speaker Pelosi all called for more troops to Iraq after the ISG report last fall. The unified calls for withdrawal didn't start until after Sen Kerry, Dodd, and other Dem leaders visited Syria in December 06 as well as the Congressional Iraq Conference in Jan 07 (recall that Republicans were not even invited). And as for Dems lying, misleading, etc that they EVER had a plan for their vaunted New Direction in Iraq...foolish mon ami. Dean went on Hardball on election night, revealed that they never even formed a brainstorm committee, came out against premature evacuation, and hasn't been on Hardball with Matthews as host since.
:-)

But, having said all that...I think you're right:

" they will just be hypocritical and vote for her as if she was always against the Iraq War."

Let's be fair: Cuba and Syria are little spots on a map. You can't expect a senator to be able to find them. He can probably find big countries like Russia, Canada, China and USA and maybe even somewhat smaller countries like Brazil, India and Mexico.

These guys are not "rank amateurs" as Keemo suggests; they are highly successful politicians. They have a lot of problems including incomprehensible ignorance. My elder grandson could have found all of these countries last year when he was a second grader.

gabbo said

"Edwards is a moron, arrogant and a fraud - bad combination. "

And yet the scary thing is despite that, you willingly voted for him in 2004. Thanks to the votes of you and your clueless colleagues, he very nearly became a heart-beat away from the most powerful job on earth.

Just goes to show that political ideology trumps common sense, especially on the left. After all, according to ABC News exit polling, Al Gore won over 80 percent of the high school dropout vote in 2000.

How will Democrats wrestle with the idea that a Clinton for President is like voting for W?
-She had better intel than W re Iraq (coulda just rolled over and said, "Honey, is Saddam really a threat?"
-She promoted the invasion-just like President Bush
-She authorized the invasion-just like President Bush and a lotta Democrats
-She supported the war0just like President Bush
-She called for more troops last fall when the ISG report came out (and in December, President Bush sent more troops)

Now, she opposes the war, pledges to win it (ala Nixon), and has also said she'll keep tens of thousands of American troops there to train the ISF, protect Iraq, and hunt Al Queda (ie, their mission for the last 4yrs)....just like President Bush

So, for Democrats, is it:
empty suit panderer extraordinaire
vs
inspirational leader who is a foreign policy fool
vs
woman every right of center already hates who takes action on the war that is in effect identical to President Bush's?

ANSWER (best quote I've seen in a long time btw):
"... they will just be hypocritical and vote for her as if she was always against the Iraq War."

Thanks again Gaffo. Sen Clinton will appreciate your vote, and lacking that, Any Republican But Hillary will appreciate your abstinence.

Obama is intelligent! That's a good one. To this day he has shown nothing new or intelligent, just the same old Democrat positions. He is the definition of "Empty Suit"

I don't know how many times I have to say this, Ed.

John Edwards has been a non-factor in this race since the "blogger kerfuffle" in February...and are we surprised now that ignorance was behind that too?

The only person on Earth who doesn't know John Edwards is out of the picture is John Edwards. I think I'm speaking for a lot of us here when I sincerely say that I'm hoping you'll do us all a big favor: make sure that this post will be the last we hear of him on CQ until he throws in the towel.

"Make sure"? Excuse me? Who elected you my editor? I write about stories that interest me. If this doesn't interest you, skip to the next post.

Kind of a funny story. I sent a care package to an Air Force guy in Afghanistan, snacks, the usual and included several magazines one of which was the edition of Men's Vogue that had John Edwards on the cover looking very John Edwards shall we say (I never subscribed, it just started arriving a few months ago). When he wrote to thank me for the package, he added "Got a little ribbing on the John Edwards cover, but the dude's $400 haircut looks Sauvé!"

Okay, doesn't mean much but I'm thinking that the Senator can probably skip campaigning at the air base in Kandahar.

There was a time when some of us were a bit concerned at the attacks on Edwards simply because his early demise would prematurely shorten the open public debate on the Democratic side. The theory was that anything that truncated that ongoing debate, cut short the active production of very good material for the inevitable general election to follow. But John Edwards has made such a monumental fool of himself already that it no longer matters. The Democrats themselves got the joke. The only downside is that Hillary, a person who has never successfully run anything in her entire life, looks good by way of comparison, but I suppose that was inevitable anyway. It just would have been nice to have a significant percentage of Democrats take Edwards seriously for a little while longer.

Scott Malensek You are right on the mark. Good comments. When the lying gabbos say they "like Ron Paul"...what that really means is that he will be like the other dhimmicrats and:

"...just be hypocritical and vote for her as if she was always against the Iraq War."

Hey, give him a break... he watched a Michael Moore movie and quite rightly claimed that he still didn't know anything about the subject. I think he was being unusually perceptive...

EI

Edwards' biggest problem is that he thinks the American public is just a 250 million person jury and that if he twists and turns his statements enough he'll be able to convince the public that he knows what he's talking about. To bad for him, we are NOT a jury and we get to keep and compare notes as his presidential "trial for hire" drones on and on. It's all his misstatements and contradictions that is driving him under, but he just can't seem to stop treating this as just another big trial with Bush as the defended and himself as the prosecutor.

Hey Democrat "empty suits" got elected governor of Ohio and Senator from PA. Don't overestimate the intelligence of the American people or underestimate the DNC/Media propaganda machine. We saw it first hand in Ohio.

Will Hillary be asked to release her White House records before the elections?

Will she be harassed and hammered by breathless journalists at every campaign stop to be forthright and come clean in the spirit of transparency?

Will Ms. Clinton be asked about Asian campaign donors who fled the US and are still on the lamb?

Please tell me how Billary gets credit for having "experience". She's a freshman senator!
Okay, let's see, before that, she slept with Bill Clinton.
So I guess that makes Monica experienced?..
Oh, THAT's the kind of "experience" you're talking about...
Shouldn't someone say something?

ycjszp uoeimghd ewuzimst elumjgpvy czirjnp mktqp wxjuaqt

nypduwe acjg kverstpbl zpxe yxqdtwpm fktyvnza kogm http://www.egyx.bxgqyue.com