re: "To say, as many on this thread have, that there is little diference between the three Dems and that we should choose Hillary because she is the most likely to win is the same sort of flawed thinking that gave us John Kerry in 2004."

I'd just like to say that this is a mis-reading of my message, if this is directed anywhere near me.

Compared to Republicans, there IS very little difference between the Democrats.

If you need to differiate yourselves, please do, but understand that many of us aren't leftwing liberals, and we would like to vote for one of your Democratic candidates.

[For example, Obama and Edwards want HRC to engage with them on SS. No, she doesn't think it's in crisis.
If you think it is in crisis, then she's not your candidate. That's a REAL difference.
But no one should say her answer is fuzzy.
It's not:
(1) Re-lock the lockbox and (2) commission a bi-partisan commission, with a promise to embrace their bi-partisan recommendations.
Again, if you don't like that answer, she's NOT your candidate. No problem. Go solve the crisis that you believe ss is in among yourselves.)

I do NOT want anyone to choose Hillary because she is "the most likely to win." I really just want Democrats to recognize that she might win, and that's she's on YOUR team.

Other than that, I want everyone to support their own candidate both enthusiastically and joyfully.

imo, John Kerry was a flawed candidate because he didn't fight the Rightwing Slime Machine.

Hillary Clinton is getting ready to beat the living crap out of that Rightwing Slime Machine. It's one of the reason why I love her.

Posted at November 19, 2007 1:08 PM in response to Going on the Offense

re: "my fear is that the media is saving the Clinton sex stories for the general election. Probably October 2008."

The problem is your fear.
THE ELECTORATE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BILL CLINTON'S SEX LIFE!!!!!!!
What in the world makes you think they do?
(Bob Novak?)

Posted at November 19, 2007 12:42 PM in response to Going on the Offense

no.
maybe i'm mis-reading your comments because you don't know how to communicate.

why are you bringing CIVIL WAR tactics to a blog discussing attacks between your fellow democrats?

Posted at November 19, 2007 12:32 PM in response to Going on the Offense

I believe Hillary Clinton has displayed great leadership skills, lots of integrity, wonderful judgement, and noticable moral clarity.

Like I said at the beginning of this topic, I sat in the audience when Bill Bradley accused Vice President Al Gore of lacking leadership, integrity, judgement, and moral clarity.
He publicly called Gore a liar.
These days, Al Gore seems to be pretty close to God among all those Democrats who once loudly cheered Bradley on.

I now understand exactly why Democrats have been losing elections for approximately the last half century.
I give up trying to help you win elections by encouraging you to become team players.
Eat each other alive. Enjoy!

Posted at November 19, 2007 12:23 PM in response to Going on the Offense

You are making my point for me.
Democrat primary = CIVIL WAR????

For the rest of us, this is about the war we are having with Republicans, not the civil war Democrats are having among themselves.
-----
re: "it might be wiser to note that it's only a single symptom of how sweeping the anointment really has been."

It's intellectually lazy for Edwards to call this "an annointment."
Edwards was ahead in Iowa. He lost that lead to both Clinton and Obama. He hasn't kept up with Obama in any measure, and Obama is holding his own against Clinton.

Annointment? No, just sour grapes.
John Edwards has failed to capture the spirit of the voters.

Posted at November 19, 2007 10:13 AM in response to Going on the Offense

I'm not a Democrat, but maybe I just found out the problem.

Re: "What you are saying here is the basis we vote on a candidate in the GENERAL election. Not how we decide which candidate best represents the democratic base and it's platform."

Don't ALL your candidates represent the Democratic base? Don't ALL your candidates represent the Democratic platform??

If you want to know the different nuances on the DEMOCRATIC issues, why don't you go onto their websites and find out the nuances? Then sell those nuances to the rest of us.

I'm not talking about "the issues."
I'm talking about Edwards and Obama using words like "polarizing" and "unelectable."
Those aren't policy differences. Those are personal attacks.
And when Richardson tells those candidates to cut it out, the rest of you simply dismiss his advice as pandering for the VP job. No, he's trying to tell you there won't be a VP job available to ANY Democrat if they keep on, very publicly, eating each other alive.

Do Democrats think just Democrats are watching them in the Democratic primary?
EVERYONE IS WATCHING YOU.

So, If Clinton wins your primary and Independents have heard Edwards and Obama -- her fellow Democrats -- call her a liar, polarizing, and unelectable, how many Independents will want to join your lying, polarizing, unelectable team?

I challenge anyone to find me a statement by Clinton that would hurt any other Democratic candidate in the general.
She talks about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. Why? Because the GOP has no healthcare plan, and it's the SECOND biggest issue for voters!!!!!
(Contrary to the GOP talking points, immigration isn't even on the radar with voters. Neither is SS. Yet two weeks ago, Obama was pounding Clinton on... yes, immigration and social security!)

And what's Obama talking about today?
He's busy talking about how he's well within his rights to suspect Hillary Clinton is a sleazebag, because Bob Novak told him so.

Do you WANT to indice your fellow Americans to be fellow Democrats?
Then stop disrespecting your fellow Democrats.
EVERYONE is watching.

Posted at November 19, 2007 9:58 AM in response to Going on the Offense

re: "According to this month's Atlantic Monthly, Clinton's campaign has been feeding negative Obama information to Matt Drudge. In true experienced political operator fashion, they have kept their fingerprints off these attempted smears. But it does suggest that Obama is justified in believing the substance of Novak's column, even if the source is, well, Novak."

You are unbelievable gullible.
Why would any Democrat ever be "justified" in believing anything Bob Novak had to say???
Are you thinking that Bob Novak is watching out for Obama?

My favorite part of your post:
"They (not the Rightwing Slime Machine -- the Hillary Clinton's campaign!!) have kept their fingerprints off these attempted smears."

Gad. L.M.F.A.O.

Posted at November 19, 2007 9:39 AM in response to Going on the Offense

Just my opinion, for what it's worth:

Democrats attack their Democratic opponents by calling them liars. That's not very smart.

This author is very kind to Bill Bradley, and all Democrats are currently very kind to Al Gore. But I was in the audience at the primary debate in NH when Democrat Bill Bradley called Democrat Al Gore a liar.

Democrats tear down their own in such a personal way, that when the general election comes, no one can stand your candidate, whoever it ends up being.
Believe me, I went through this with Al Gore. I'm going through it right now as a supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Edwards has called the Democrat's frontrunner a shady character. Obama has said that immoral politics is not beyond the Clinton "machine."
Those are GOP talking points.
You've already announced that your front-running (whether you'll even admit THAT or not) Democratic candidate has major character flaws.

Does Rudy Giuliani have major character flaws? Yes. Have you heard any Republicans call him a liar? No. They've called him a leader.

I'm completely disgusted with Obama and his stupidity today:
The darkest of the darkest GOP operative hinted that Democrats hinted that Clinton "agents" hinted that they have dirt on Obama.
And Obama's response is to attack Clinton as a dirty politician!!!!! Whew.
I guarantee that Bob Noval is laughing his ass off this morning at first-term Senator Barack Obama.

Clinton's attacks on Obama?
Clinton told us that Obama's healthcare plan wasn't universal because it doesn't cover 15 million people -- "about the populations of Iowa, New Hamshire, Nevada, and South Carolina."
How much smarter can you get?

Not only is she smart, she knows that Democrats should be talking about one another's healthcare plans, because the GOP don't have any.
So, did Obama take the spotlight that Bob Novak gave him and blast the Rightwing Slime Machine AND use all the attention to talk about healthcare???
No, he used the attention to put the attention back on Clinton.
And then she got to say she had nothing to do with the rumors and move on.
He's still defending his overreaction today.

The two topics the GOP wants to divide America with this time around are terrorism and immigration.
Democrats on immigration: Comprehensive immigration policy. No differences.
Yet (1) Obama tried to make like there were differences (falling right into the GOP trap), and then (2) he was not able to explain the Democratic stand on immigration any better than Clinton.
Thanks, OB! Now the democrats' immigration message is double-muddled.

Clinton hasn't hurt any of her opponents if they should win the primary.
Her opponents have done to her what Democrats do to all their frontrunners -- they attack the candidate's character.
Why? I don't get it.

And Democrats even attack the characters of Clinton supporters!
Democrats are just basically horrible at teamwork.

The other thing that reveals the Democrats' mental weakness is their claim that the GOP will take down Hillary Clinton. No one in the GOP will take down Hillary Clinton. Every time a Democrat says that, they look weak.

Also, Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife, but he has been campaigning for ALL the candidates.
When Edwards implies the clinton Presidency was a bust... well, I just shake my head and wish I wasn't voting for Democrats these days.

Democrats have had ONE two-term President since FDR. And the Democrats are going to call that guy a failure? Whew.

When he left office, 70% of the nation thought the country was moving in the right direction.
And that's a failure?!!?
No, Gore not winning in 2000 was a failure.
Kerry not winning in 2004 was a failure.
Bill Clinton winning in 1992 AND 1996 was NOT a failure.

Well, enough.
I already know this entire post is a complete waste of time.
Democrats have a reputation as "hard to herd cats" and seem to think that's funny.
It's not.

Posted at November 19, 2007 3:36 AM in response to Going on the Offense

I'd like to know how the author gets to say this:
"Her suggestion that she voted for the Iraq War resolution on the assumption that it would strengthen the United States' hand in dealing with Saddam Hussein, then felt "lied to" when Bush used the resolution to pave the path to war, is simply not credible."

Sorry?
Don't we all agree that Bush DID lie before taking us to war? Yes.
He DID say he wouldn't pull the inspectors out, etc. etc. etc.
I think Bush probably truly believed the weapons were there and the inspectors would find the wmd's and Saddam would refuse to give them up and we would go to war. I don't deny that.
But I seriously don't think too many Congresspeople thought at that time that he would actually pull the inspeactors, when it was made clear (Or so we thought. We don't torture either, right?) that that was one of the stipulations.

My husband was in a position to know that there were no WMD's in Iraq because of some of his military service during Gulf War I. He called Cheney a liar out loud when Cheney said he knew where the wmd's were on Aug. 22, 2002.
However, even he believed Bush would be caught at his game when the inspectors didn't find any wmd's.

We know a lot more about Bush now than we knew when that resolution was passed. For instance, I'm still shocked that Bush surged after The 2006 Thumpin'. Did anyone expect that spit in our face, even already knowing he's an asshole? In Oct 2001, 90% of America wanted to have a beer with him.

Before he invaded Iraq, I thought he was a buffoon. Now I think he's psychotic. There's a big difference in what we know now, and we've all had to go through a pretty sickening learning curve.

I just personally think all 2002 votes are past history (except for sending Bush and the neocons to the Hague for war crimes) and a part of the Cheney Machine, which many of us didn't realize has been lurking at the dials since coming to the WH as a young up and comer with Richard Nixon.

Otherwise, I'm fine with the rest of the piece.

Posted at November 2, 2007 12:21 PM in response to Hillary Clinton: A Different Kind of Democrat?

1. Well, most of us want Bill Clinton's role in his wife's administration to be HUGE. (FACT: 70% of the country thought we were going in the right direction when he left office. Now? 70%, WRONG direction)
What are you looking for here from the campaign? His precise job description? Can we call it "Roving Ambassador" for now, or do you need the exact job description and list of countries he will visit the first month?

2.Have you ever considered typing "www.hillaryclinton.com" into your computer? She is AGAINST torture. What part of that are you having a problem with? To say she is arguing the defintion of torture is a lie, and therefore a Rightwing Slime Machine talking point.

3. Here's the REAL problem with the msm:
A guy interviews Gerald Ford years ago and Ford tells him his opinion on a bunch of stuff that can only be published after he's dead. The book comes out and there's a paragraph where Ford calls Clinton a sex addict (one of those famous Dr. Frist from-far-away diagnosis). There's also a chapter on Ford opining that Bush took us into a flustercluck in Iraq.
So... Guess what the only headline is regarding this book?

If you are incapable of typing in "www.hillaryclinton.com" then I simply suggest you don't vote for Senator Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is taking on George W. Bush. You want her to take on John Edwards et al.
It's not going to happen.

Posted at November 1, 2007 9:40 AM in response to Dowd, the Demonic Dominatrix, and a Feline