ughghghg....

Yeah, but now HRC is trying to play it both ways by accepting that McGovern endorsement and trying to take the edge off the hawkishness. Bound to backfire, but worth noting, I guess.

And? What is your point? You don't like Bush (neither do I), you don't like the democrats, so, maybe you should bring Hugo Chavez in. C'mon!

Do you really believe Iran to be a pillar of restraint and peaceful intentions? I do believe the level of threat they pose has been taken a bit out of proportion, but they are a rogue nation nonetheless.

Is going to war with them a good idea? Of course not, unless they start posing a real, serious, threat to the status quo.

Now, they don't. The moment they do, they will get their arses kicked. No matter who the fuck wins the election. The Iranians are not idiots. They can talk all they want, but they'd never dare to pick a fight.

I never quite believe those polls that say who is leading whom. They check with such a small percentage of the actual populations as to be meaningless. That being said . . .

Please, Jebus, let Barak Obama be out canidate!!!

I hate, also, that people are going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, because she's a fucking martyr (see: Bill cheating on her constantly), because she's got "more experience" because she was once First Lady (how's that political experience?!). Sorry, no, these are all bad reasons to vote for her. Vote for somebody else for valid reasons, god dammit!

Yeah, let's go to war with Iran. The rest of the world supports it, especially or good Russian friends: Putin Hates Iran too, let's invade
Seriously. We need to leave Iraq, but not to immediatley (or in a few months after) go to war in a DIFFERENT middle-eastern country. Since when is being anything other than reactionary a good idea? Does the NSA have a future-predicting machine? They must, because that sure is how our country has been acting. This is sure getting old.

Not that a lot of candidates flip flop but she is especially bad.

Also seems to be trying to use the "native of..." card where ever she goes.
During her senate run she moved to NY proclaimed herself to "fellow New Yorkers" now against Obama she's using the "I was born and raised here" after living for some period in suburban north Chicagoland Go Cubs, Go.

Such a shame the dems went with Kerry instead of Edwards in the last election, that guy has recently started looking like a pretty decent candidate. Here's hoping (against all odds) that either Obama or him might end up as the dem candidate, I reckon either one of them would make a pretty good president. And it could happen.

I mean, Hillary Clinton can spontaneously combust one day or something, right?

Check out Mike Gravel, a Ron Paul for the left.

Clinton is constantly flip-flopping, and says whatever she thinks will please the particular people she's addressing. Obama never knows what to say in any situation, and wouldn't know what the hell to do with a potential conflict in Iran.

So far I think Edwards is the only one that would do a decent job, and the most press he's gotten is when some idiots were bitching about the cost of his haircut.

We're in trouble, folks.

You could also write a piece entitled "Be a Good Idiot and Vote for Anyone Who Claims to Not Have Supported the War".

Sorry, but there's a wing of the democratic party that would vote for a drugged up hobo with a horse fetish and a 47 IQ if he had voted against the war and had a consistent anti-war, anti-Bush stance.

I'm not going to make a decision about who I vote for in the primary or in the general election based entirely on a singular issue. That would make me as bad as the fetus-obsessed pro-lifers or the rapture-believing religious right. This isn't about Hillary supporting the war. This is about a vote she made with information AT THE TIME.

I actually don't even have a problem with her initial vote. I have a problem with every single solitary thing the administration (and let's be frank, 90% of congress) did after that. But I'm not into doing a complete and total rewrite of what happened then.

If Hillary went back and admitted her intiial vote was wrong, she'd be called a flip-flopper. Now she's being a called a warmonger. Whatever. The vote was made based on false information, presented by the administration. It's all well and good to go back and claim that the democrats who voted against the war did so with purest of hearts and a prescient understanding of where the war would take us. Maybe some, but the rest were pandering cowards who were content to go move in a herd and therefore not be able to be singled out for anything (bad OR good).

Edited to add: I understand, FTR, that you are making a case outside of just her initial vote. But most Hillary-bashers aren't.

Dick Durbin, AT THE TIME, voted against the war. He's not exactly Dennis Kucinich. Why? He actually looked at the intelligence. Hillary's excuse of, "I voted with what info I had at the time" is a bullshit excuse, sorry. She actually didn't look into it, and like most Democrats voted out of ignorance.

Attacking Obama in an article about Hillary that doesn't even imply endorsement of him is a pretty huge red herring.