I don't know about a backtrack, but if he is it's just more fodder for the flip flop cannon.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-more-occupations/

Sorry the post didn't put the URL last time. Here it is.

I guess he's also going to now say he's a economic wiz and won't have to read Greenspan's book after all.

A Bush / Sunni Alliance Against the Shia?
Paying Insurgents Not to Fight

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

It is impossible to keep up with all the Bush regime's lies. There are simply too many. Among the recent crop, one of the biggest is that the "surge" is working. Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000 - 30,000 US troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.

This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of US soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.

The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "US-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack US troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al Qaeda.

This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn't figure it out sooner.

The "surge" was also timed to take account of the near completion of neighborhood cleansing. Most of the violence in Iraq during the past five years has resulted from Sunnis and Shi'ites driving each other out of mixed neighborhoods. Had the two groups been capable of uniting against the US troops, the US would have been driven out of Iraq long ago. Instead, the Iraqis slaughtered each other and fought the Americans in their spare time.

In other words, the "surge" has had nothing to do with any decline in violence. With the Sunni insurgents now on Uncle Sam's payroll, with neighborhoods segregated, and with al Sadr's militia standing down, it is unclear who is still responsible for ongoing violence other than US troops themselves. Somebody must still be fighting, however, because the US is still conducting air strikes and is still unable to tell friend from foe.

On February 16, the Los Angeles Times reported that a US air strike managed to kill 9 Iraqi civilians and 3 Sons of Iraq.

The Sunnis are abandoning their posts in protest, demanding an end to "errant" US air strikes. Obviously, the Sunnis see an opportunity to increase their daily pay for not attacking Americans. Soon they will have consultants advising them how much they can demand in bribes before it pays the Americans to begin fighting the war under the old terms. If Sunnis are smart, they will split the gains. Currently, the Sunnis are getting shafted. They are only collecting $800,000 of the $275,000,000 million it costs the US to fight the war for one day.

That's only about three-tenths of one percent, too much of a one-sided deal for the Americans.

If the Sunnis negotiate their cut to between one-quarter and one-half of the daily cost to the US of the war, the Sunnis won't need to share in the oil revenues, thus helping the three factions to get back together as a country. Even 20 per cent of the daily cost of the war would be a good deal for the Sunnis. A long-term contract in this range would be expensive for Uncle Sam, but a great deal cheaper than John McCain's commitment to a 100-year Iraqi war.

If Bush's war turns out to be as big a boon for the Sunnis as it has for Tony Blair, we might have a modern-day version of "The Mouse That Roared"--a movie about an impoverished country that attacked the US in order to be defeated and receive foreign aid--only this time the money comes as a payoff for not fighting the occupiers.

As the world now knows, Blair's "dodgy dossier" about the threat allegedly posed by Iraq was a contrivance that allowed Blair to put British troops at the service of Bush's aggression in the Middle East. Now that Blair is out of his prime minister job, he has been rewarded with millions of dollars in sinecures from financial firms such as JP Morgan and millions more in speaking engagements. As part of the payoff, the Bush Republicans have even put Mrs. Blair on the lucrative lecture circuit.

Ask yourself, do you really think Blair knows enough high finance to be of any value as an advisor to JP Morgan, or enough about climate change to advise Zurich Financial on the subject? Do you really believe that after hearing all the vacuous speeches Blair has delivered in those many years in office anyone now wants to pay him huge fees to hear him give a speech? Even when it was free, people were sick of it.

Blair is simply collecting his payoff for selling out his country and sending British troops to die for American hegemony.

The Sunnis seem inclined to do the same thing if Bush will pay them enough.

Is the next phase of the Iraq war going to be a US-Sunni alliiance against the Shi'ites?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Bush's Life of Constitutional Crime
Lies and Spies

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts.

The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert.

Bush says the Democrats have put "our country more in danger of an attack" by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30 year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists.

The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president.

To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush's accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bush's illegal spying.

Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court.

Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else.

Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime.

As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them. As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bush's illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures.

Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire.

With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, won't be safe unless Bush is very powerful.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints.

Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere.

Republicans have used the "war on terror" to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bush's grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington.

The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing.

Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

[Brownshirts were the political army of Adolph Hitler, the NSDAP, the National Socialist Party, the REPUBLICAN PARTY, and Leader means Fuhrer. Bush being the leader of the brownshirts would make Bush the Fuhrer and equivalent to Adolph Hitler.]

McCain Tries to Backtrack on 100 Years of War

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7276_mccain_to.html

John McCain has finally gone to the press and backtracked on his quote that he would [be]comfortable with a 100-year-long American presence in Iraq, saying that he "was taken out context -- wildly."

Uh, actually no. Our very own David Corn was at the event where McCain made the 100 years comment, and asked the candidate about it afterward. Check the link [http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html]. McCain can't weasel out of this one.

David Corn's Post January 3, 2008:

McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

Well, it was straight talk. And McCain's combativeness livened up a session during which he alternated between the old McCain (as in punchy, feisty, humorous) and the old McCain (as in just plain old). He moved a bit stiffly on the stage set up in the middle of the Adams Memorial Opera House. And he--somewhat oddly--shared the spotlight with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has endorsed him. Lieberman did not merely introduce McCain; he stood by McCain during the entire event, helping McCain to answer questions about education, climate change, and the Iraq war. Several times, Lieberman gave more coherent and animated replies than did McCain. Repeatedly, Lieberman maintained that McCain could rack up bipartisan successes as president. (The Lieberman sidekick bit was curious. But an elementary-age girl in the audience did say, after being handed a microphone, that Lieberman was her role-model and that she fancied McCain. Lieberman hugged her, and the whole crowd oohed at this cuteness.)

McCain Tries to Backtrack on 100 Years of War

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7276_mccain_to.html

John McCain has finally gone to the press and backtracked on his quote that he would [be]comfortable with a 100-year-long American presence in Iraq, saying that he "was taken out context -- wildly."

Uh, actually no. Our very own David Corn was at the event where McCain made the 100 years comment, and asked the candidate about it afterward. Check the link [http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html]. McCain can't weasel out of this one.

David Corn's Post January 3, 2008:

McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years"

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

Well, it was straight talk. And McCain's combativeness livened up a session during which he alternated between the old McCain (as in punchy, feisty, humorous) and the old McCain (as in just plain old). He moved a bit stiffly on the stage set up in the middle of the Adams Memorial Opera House. And he--somewhat oddly--shared the spotlight with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has endorsed him. Lieberman did not merely introduce McCain; he stood by McCain during the entire event, helping McCain to answer questions about education, climate change, and the Iraq war. Several times, Lieberman gave more coherent and animated replies than did McCain. Repeatedly, Lieberman maintained that McCain could rack up bipartisan successes as president. (The Lieberman sidekick bit was curious. But an elementary-age girl in the audience did say, after being handed a microphone, that Lieberman was her role-model and that she fancied McCain. Lieberman hugged her, and the whole crowd oohed at this cuteness.)

The really significant thing about McCain's remark is not the out-of-context absurdity of it; it's the in-context fact that it shows his thinking is mired in the Cold War. A new century with new problems needs new tactics.

It's like in court and you say something and the opposing attorney objects, and the judge says, "sustained" but too late the cats out of the bag. He'll will always be the candidate that wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time, no matter what he says now.

But for a catastrophe, McCain will be the Republican nominee. If the Democratic establishment continues down the path of "anybody but Clinton" we could see Obama as the Democratic nominee. The general election season hasn't started but the Republicans have the following sound bites against Obama:
- "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American". I know Mrs. Obama didn't mean the way the radical right and the media is playing it out to be. But has that stopped the Republicans in the past
- A surrogate for Obama on National TV couldn't mention a single legislative accomplishment of Senator Obama. I know the surrogate came unprepaed for that question. But has that stopped the Republicans in the past
- Obama has pledged, when he didn't expect to make this level of headway, for public campaign financing. Because it is to his advantage McCain will keep bringing it up and every surrogate of his and every media person will bring it up. Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place on this.

Does anyone think Rove will not have a part to play in the general elections. All Rove needs are 3 sharp issues and he can drive a whole election with it to victory.

Obama is the darling of the media (even Fox News); if there needs to be proof see how every network channel out there cut Senator Clinton off mid way and brought Obama. Look at the history of elections in the last few seasons and one can predict where the mainstream media will be come general election time. Presently the media is totally ignoring Obama's inexperience and how he voted "present" so many times or the clip of his relatives from Kenya. Wait till the general elections start; that is when the media will come with its guns blazing against Obama. It is has become so obvious the mainstream media (Fox, MSNBC, CNN etc.) hates the Clintons. Once the Clintons are removed from the picture, the mainstream media will follow without a wimper what Fox does; the rest have to maintain their ratings you see.

Then Ted Kennedy would be able to do nothing; in fact he will become a liability.

Are we headed for Mondale, McGovern repeat.

On the flip side, Arnold in California won inspite of his inexperience, in spite of all the women problems that were coming out. He won because he was exciting, upbeat and charismatic. Obama has comparitively more experience and insignificant problems compared to the Governator. Could Obama pull an "Arnold".

If he does and if he becomes the President where will he be. Republican right will put up a fight. What will Obama do; he says fighting belongs to Hillary's generation. Will we see a rightward democratic move. He has already said Reagan was more transformatic than Clinton; when Reagan came strong against Unions and minorities, Clinton strengthened Unions and gave voice to minorities. Obama has aleady said Republicans were the ideas party of the 90's. The party that has given us record deficits and erosion of the constitution and the far rightward move of the Courts. while Clinton left a surplus and an economy that was thriving and booming.

Everyone, especially the media is aggresively pushing the idea that Obama supporters will stay at home and will be upset if he is not the nominee. What abouty Hillary supporters. Let us not forget she has almost parity on pledged delegate count with Obama. Let us also not forget Obama has won in Red States and states where Independents can vote. Hillary has taken the large Blue States. Let us not forget McCain will have a strong appeal with the Independents and Moderate Republicans; and these are the folks voting for Obama.

Maria Shriver's network had profiles of Obama and Clinton on yesterday. For Clinton MSNBC focused on all the negative aspects of Bill Clinton's presidency (Monika Lewinsky and how he lied about the affair) without mentioning anything on the positive aspects. And Obama came out as Knight in Shining Armor.

We had 8 years of all talk from the Reagan administration, from the "great communicator" down. We know what happened during the Reagan era (of-course Obama is a big fan of Reagan). Then we had 8 years of all rhetoric and no action from W. I don't think any one needs reminding of the state the country is in.

Now we have Obama the "great orator". We also know he doesn't always mean what he says, even writes. Case in point is the public campaign financing. Labor is tripping all over each other to endorse Obama; does it know what Obama will do, in concrete terms for labor. They know where Hillary stands and does for Labor. Do African Americans know what Obama will do for them. His Healthcare plan is tweaking at the edges of what already exists and Hillary is proposing an overhaul of a failed system. There is a history of what Hillary will do for African Americans. Do we have any concrete plans from Obama.

Do we want another 4 years of rhetoric without having any idea of the specifics. Does anyone know the specifics of what Obama will do. Yes he will change the way Washington works; doesn't every candidate say the same thing in every election. Where are the specifics that can be evaluated for us to judge where Obama stands on issues affecting all of us.

If the media likes a candidate, they will bombard us with every positive aspect of the person and putting down the other candidate. The media did that with W and Gore in 2000 and W and Kerry in '04.

CNN and CNBC have become a propaganda arm of Obama. Everything they report and say about Hillary is negative. And there is no probing of Obama!

Regarding the McCain 'leak' about the NY Times story - I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that started the story. How else would he be able to ensure he still has a job - these people who stand by anyone that is a Republican no matter how corrupt or unethical that person may be. And he has been on the wrong side this time - Now he can be a 'bigger man' (no I don't mean his weight) and come to his valiant rescue, or at lease support.

Regarding the McCain 'leak' about the NY Times story - I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that started the story. How else would he be able to ensure he still has a job - these people who stand by anyone that is a Republican no matter how corrupt or unethical that person may be. And he has been on the wrong side this time - Now he can be a 'bigger man' (no I don't mean his weight) and come to his valiant rescue, or at lease support.

Regarding the McCain 'leak' about the NY Times story - I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that started the story. How else would he be able to ensure he still has a job - these people who stand by anyone that is a Republican no matter how corrupt or unethical that person may be. And he has been on the wrong side this time - Now he can be a 'bigger man' (no I don't mean his weight) and come to his valiant rescue, or at lease support.

Regarding the McCain 'leak' about the NY Times story - I believe it was Rush Limbaugh that started the story. How else would he be able to ensure he still has a job - these people who stand by anyone that is a Republican no matter how corrupt or unethical that person may be. And he has been on the wrong side this time - Now he can be a 'bigger man' (no I don't mean his weight) and come to his valiant rescue, or at lease support.

The media spin on today's spin was Obama won. It must not have the same debate I watched.
Whereas Senator Clinton was specific and to the point, Senator Obama was out to attack Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton's answers where to the point and very specific. His answers were long winded and the same irrespective of the question. She was answering to let the voters know what she would do as President. And he was answering for the applause and for the sound-bites. Obama has been flip-flopping on issues based on which way the wind is blowing; recall the Cuba answer in today's debate.

His favorite is the "Great Communicator"; the one who left us with deficits and crushed labor and ignored minorities.

Yes Obama can be compared to JFK. And nobody has mentioned this, but Hillary can be compared to Bobby Kennedy. JFK had presence and charisma. Bobby had passion, substance and ability to get things done. Where would the country have been if it had seen a Bobby Presidency. We will never know. Teddy, Caroline and Maria Shriver have ensured Clinton would be wiped out of the primaries.

Senator Obama will be missing the Black Union Forum at the site of one of the worst tragedies of our times, especially for low income African Americans. He is missing it because he is busy campaigning.

Senator Hilton is also contesting in the same elections; March 4 actually are must win elections for her. Yet she will be there at this forum showing solidarity with people of New Orleans and the African American community! She has the passion for uplifting the underpriviledged that Bobby Kennedy showed.

Clintons have walked the walk for African Americans and Union households. Could this absence from the Forum by Senator Obama be an indication he is good at talking the talk but may be found wanting when the walk has to be walked.

Senator Obama is possibly the smartest and most electrifying politicians in the country today. He has shown he is an extremely fast learner; see how he has matured before our very eyes in the debates. I think he will make a great President. But he is a man in a hurry. Wouldn't 8 years of Senator Clinton and 8 years of Senator Obama after be historic and fabulously great for the country. 16 years of the two smartest politicians of our times (I think Senator Hillary is smarter and more capable than President Clinton) after the current president would be a huge breath of fresh air.

Could we lose this historic moment of seeing a woman President followed by an African American President after that. Will Senator Obama be able to withstand the onslaught by Karl Rove, Fox News Channel and the radical right. We know Senator Clinton has for 20 years or more and she is still standing and going strong.

So, Bill Clinton gave us the biggest tax increase of $280 Billion? Yes, exactly, but he grew the economy and everyone has a job. He pushed for legislation to kick-off the internet.

Right now, Bush's economy, gave the rich tax breaks and a 1 trillion dollar debt. The future generations will be paying that debt. So I rather take the 250 billion tax increase anytime, over paying 1 trillion dollar.

Bush's record
A war with no end in sight
High gas prices
1 Trillion debt
No economy
No jobs, just $300 welfare check to everyone

Man, where's the beef?

I'm so sick and tired of everything, but the bottomline is this:

if you need serious help, Hillary is the one
if you need a preacher, take Obama
if you like to send you son to Iraq, take
McBushain

The Republican's agenda is worst than Hillary

1) Passed the Patriotic Act to spy on all of us
2) Scared the country to give him rights
3) Invaded a country
4) Put us in debt

I rather take the 90's anytime, than 7 years of failed policies, crushing the middle class.

Here are the guidelines, again:

If U need a serious economy, take Hillary
If U need a psychologist, take Obama
If U would like to send your son to war,
take McBushain

Right now, I like Hillary to be President and Obama to be the VP.

Hillary can hammer out the details and create a real economy, like her husband, Bill Clinton. Obama can go around the world and the country and establish himself, as a world leader and spread the love and the warmth of our nation.

McCain, he needs to retire. I dont want to be stuck in the oil fields with no end in sight.

Free, I'm tired of everything too. Eight more months of this, please. I like the idea you have but bill would want to do obama's job and he would not get to pick who heads up the agency's. I think he would pick good people. Just look at the campaign he has organized with good people. If he can organize like that, I say go obama.

I hope our candidates have extra extra security. The wackos that the republicans have attracted could be dangerous. They are religious radicals that believe that god, guns, wars, bombs, the cross and patriotism all go hand in hand. Really the only difference from the religious radicals over here and the ones, "over there" is ours haven't strapped bombs on themselves yet.

Oh my gosh, you got me laughing there. They havent strapped bombs to themselves, because, as Christians, one of the most important aspect of Christianity, is, the power of 'love' and 'forgiveness', otherwise, they'll be strapping bombs around themselves.

God has called us, to live above, our levels of sins, whereas, the Muslim religion, it has called for martyrdom.

I once had to preach to a Muslim. He said I can throw the New Testament away because it's all a lie, but I can keep the Old Testament. I, then, told him, that EVEN if I threw the New Testament away, Jesus is still the Saviour, as according to the prophecies of Isaiah and throughout the Old Testament.

I told him that the Muslims were lied to, and Jesus is their Saviour. Muslims do not believ that Jesus is the Saviour, but He is the Saviour. He has shined the light of God, in the darkest corners of our hearts. Islam, has shined, the dark light of the a deceived message.

This is not to say that Muslims are bad, they just need to be educated and need an opportunity to make decisions.

I know I thought about it too. If you ran a bad campaign and you miscalculated your mission, when you become the Prez, this CAN be a huge problem. I love the Clintons, but I guess it's not her war to win, but I take Obama or Hillary, anytime, over Four more Years of digging in the oil fields.

Whatever Obama does, I hope that he befriends the Jews, because we, will be blessed through them,as according to God's prophecy. His curse will be on those that curse them and his blessings will be upon those that blesses them.

Yep, to be a good Prez, you need wise and talented cabinets. They cant be extremists.

Right now, I'm pretty close to calling the Republicans, the friend of the coming Anti-Christ. The AntiChrist, wherever he is, is in the waiting room. The Republicans are setting the stage for him to take over. Their agenda are so Hitler-like. It's amazing, but like they say, 'history', repeats itself.

Overall, I truly believe God did call Bush into the presidency. The prophecies will be fulfilled one way or another. (It's quite sad that it took a Christian president to start the apocalyse. but this is only the beginning.)

Only the Republicans are tough enough to bring about the fulfillment of the prophecies. Today, they are Christians, but tomorrow, should their Christian views, change a little bit and be fraud, we will see the Anti Christ, arise out of their party.

I know I sound crazy, but just look at Bush. He's accomplished much. Our Constitution broke in half. He has just shown and made a perfect example of how to open the door to a dictator.

Currently, in the newspaper, our government has given funds to a company that will create a database of biometric physical data, just give it time, and none of us, in the future, will not be able to buy or sell, without the authority of a mark.

It's coming.

I dont hate the Republicans, we need them to protect Mother America, but the Democrats, need to keep them in check. They can go crazy.

If Hillary does not win Ohio and Texas, Obama should be our choice. I think either way, we'll be on our way, out of the tarred, oil pit fields.

Well, I think to fix the problem, we, the People of the United States, NEED to impose a fix-term limit on our government.

We, the People, are part of the problem. We're not dumb and not active in our government. We trust our government. In other countries, they fight for their healtchcare and retirements. In America, we sleep our way to poverty.

In France, they DEMAND and protest, over here, we stay home and go hungry.

Uh, Patriotmom, you are one of those religious radical patriots I was talking about. I thought we ran you off. Your wasting your time here, because we are too stupid to understand what you say.

I was very impressed with the way Obama has positioned himself as a Change Candidate. And I have been impressed with his focus on changing the mindset of the politics in the nation, especially in Washington.
And then we have the flyer from Obama with lies on Hillary's position on NAFTA and Healthcare.
This has made it obvious that Obama is no different than the other politicians. In fact he seems to be executing the playbook of the radical right.

I am disillusioned by Obama. I would rather vote for a maverick Republican than a Rovian Democrat.

For someone to even remotely suggest that our troops be committed to Iraq for 100 years and allow for of the killing and maiming of Three(3)more generations of our grandchildren, to me, that someone lies somewhere well beyond the dimensions of insanity! And someone better take a closer look at that someone.
Tom Nass
5th Marine Division - WW-II

For someone to even remotely suggest that our troops be committed to Iraq for 100 years and allow for of the killing and maiming of Three(3)more generations of our grandchildren, to me, that someone lies somewhere well beyond the dimensions of insanity! And someone better take a closer look at that someone.
Tom Nass
5th Marine Division - WW-II

Okay, the jobs are gone. Now, let's turn to the future and create futuristic jobs and stop, spinning our wheels in Iraq.

For seven years, the Middle Class ate Bush's lunch and dinner packages, consisting of nothing but dog bones in the morning and dog bones in the afternoon, while feeding the greedy billionaires, the best of America.

It's time to turn over a new leaf and go Green!!!

May Hillary win!!! I believe that we can go so much farther off, into the future, with her, than Obama.

no MCcain,
he's four more years of Bush,
this time, pile deeper....
they have had their chances to change America, for seven years, they spinned
the wheels in oil, it's time to move on..

I dont care if Obama does this or Obama does that or Hillary did this or that,

Our focus, should be to hire a qualified candidate that will improve our lives.

I definitely, dont see that in McCain. How can I live a better life, spinnign why wheels in oil? and tax cuts for the rich?

Are we Americans stupid or what?

Obama is going to crumble under the weights of McCain. When the dogs come out, he has no weight.

Hillary, I just want to let you know that you are a true innovator and leader, both you and your husband.

About Obama, he just repeats after yourself. I have listened to the news and rad stories. Everytime you come out with ideas, he comes out with ones, identical to yours. I wish he would first initiate his ideas, but he usually does not do that, until you do it.

he truly is a Xerox machine.

By the way Democrats,

Why are you letting Republicans vote in Texas? That's horrible. They'll mess up Hillary's chance of beating Obama.

If I were them, I'll vote so Hilalry will lose and then in the general election, I'll cross over to vote for McCain. Have you all thought of that?

I hope Hillary wins, because, Obama is going to sound like Hillary and act like a Hillary and talk like a Hillary, but when he becomes the Prez, he's not going to be as effective as Hillary, especially, if all you do, is copy someoneons' work and you dont have a plan of your own.

There was a time when the candidates where the center piece of the debate. Now it is the moderators who are the center-piece; at least the one by MSNBC. Tim Russert "drawing the Marlin"?!!? Is it about Tim Russert or about people knowing the candidates better and the moderators, as the name suggests, merely moderating the debates.
Today's debate sums up how the media has propped up Obama. As the general elections rolls in the radical rigt wing media will go on the attack of Obama. And as usual the spineless mainstream media would follow-up along out of utter fear they would be called Liberal. We saw that during W vs Gore, during the lead-up to the Iraq War and during W vs Kerry. Tim Russert was so keen on "drawing the Marlin" with glee with respect to the Iraq. Has he ever gone on record in accepting responsibility for being a silent follower of the W, Disk, Rummy war.

Once again the Maria Shriver network couldn't hide their blatant support for Obama. Time and time again, Obama would go on and on with absolutely no interruption and Hillary would be cut off even before she could answer a question fully. The issue was not about going first but about having the last word. Consistently, Obama was allowed to have the last and long winded word with no interruption and Hillary was not even allowed to answer her question fully.

And Obama surrogates are saying there would protests on the streets if Obama is not nominated. Obama says we have to get past the attitude of the 60s. Surprisingly his campaign is heading us towards Chicago '68; if indeed there is protests on the streets if Obama is not nominated. Or is Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy leading us to McGovern '72.

Obama is calling Hillary the establishment candidate. What a joke that is when every major establishment player is falling behind Obama; if Ted Kennedy is not establishment, who is.

Let us not forget Hillary is almost on parity with Obama in spite of aggresive anti Hillary stance by establishment players like Ted Kennedy. It is made out it is only Obama who is creating excitement and totally ignoring the equal excitement that Hillary is creating.

The party needs to bring in some parity with respect to this. It should put a stop to Karl Rove tactics being used by Obama. It needs to very quickly by establishment players going so aggresively against Hillary will turn-off many of Hillary supporters in the general elections.

There was a time when the candidates where the center piece of the debate. Now it is the moderators who are the center-piece; at least the one by MSNBC. Tim Russert "drawing the Marlin"?!!? Is it about Tim Russert or about people knowing the candidates better and the moderators, as the name suggests, merely moderating the debates.
Today's debate sums up how the media has propped up Obama. As the general elections rolls in the radical rigt wing media will go on the attack of Obama. And as usual the spineless mainstream media would follow-up along out of utter fear they would be called Liberal. We saw that during W vs Gore, during the lead-up to the Iraq War and during W vs Kerry. Tim Russert was so keen on "drawing the Marlin" with glee with respect to the Iraq. Has he ever gone on record in accepting responsibility for being a silent follower of the W, Disk, Rummy war.

Once again the Maria Shriver network couldn't hide their blatant support for Obama. Time and time again, Obama would go on and on with absolutely no interruption and Hillary would be cut off even before she could answer a question fully. The issue was not about going first but about having the last word. Consistently, Obama was allowed to have the last and long winded word with no interruption and Hillary was not even allowed to answer her question fully.

And Obama surrogates are saying there would protests on the streets if Obama is not nominated. Obama says we have to get past the attitude of the 60s. Surprisingly his campaign is heading us towards Chicago '68; if indeed there is protests on the streets if Obama is not nominated. Or is Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy leading us to McGovern '72.

Obama is calling Hillary the establishment candidate. What a joke that is when every major establishment player is falling behind Obama; if Ted Kennedy is not establishment, who is.

Let us not forget Hillary is almost on parity with Obama in spite of aggresive anti Hillary stance by establishment players like Ted Kennedy. It is made out it is only Obama who is creating excitement and totally ignoring the equal excitement that Hillary is creating.

The party needs to bring in some parity with respect to this. It should put a stop to Karl Rove tactics being used by Obama. It needs to very quickly by establishment players going so aggresively against Hillary will turn-off many of Hillary supporters in the general elections.

Actually, this is a very very sad moment, in the history of the Democratic Party. We have two GREAT candidates. Time is on Obama's side. He is still young. Hillary does not have time.

Oh well, wish them both well.

I was leaning toward Obama, but after hearing him on the debate, talking about foreign policy. He really IS NOT ready to lead the country.

These statements " McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

I am younger than the guy and even I know that al-Qaida is active in Iraq. It doesnt matter when, how or where, al-Qaida, is active everywhere. It doesnt matter, al-Qaida is everywhere.

What is Obama thinking? Statements like these are so JUNIORISH.

Bring back Hillary. Please Hillary, save us from this JUNIOR Senator.

Like I said, Hillary is going to hit the ground running, Obama, will hit the ground, crawling. He is very JUNIOR. These statements are so JUNIORISH. Democrats have to be stupid, to think that he is ready.

Let's just hire 4-yr college students and place them in CEO positions.

Hillary for Prez, Obama for Vice Prez. He needs time. This man needs time. Please America, wake up!!!

He's Jimmy Carter v 2.0. He's not ready.

At the Presidential level, you just dont make these types of statements.

I'm going to tell you what is going to happen to Obama (wheels on training).

He's going to reach out to world leaders and they are going to take advantages of him and slap him around, because he is young and inexperienced. They are going to play with him like a little boy and not be afraid. After he gets slapped around, (by that time, it'd be too late), he finally gets it, but we are already at a disadvantage.

he is going to forge stupid treaties with our enemies and he's not going to watch his back.

At the Senator-level, you can say stupid things, but when you are running for President, you cant say these 'JUniorish' statements.

I am not in the army or anything, but even I know, you dont say things like this, it shows how JUnior you are.

A story is often told at times like this - times when American voters are choosing among candidates richly seasoned with political experience and those who are less experienced but perhaps more exciting alternatives. Once upon a time, the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans, and a charismatic young President, gifted as a speechmaker but little tested as an executive, was finding his way through his first 100 days. On Day 85, he stumbled, and the result for John F. Kennedy was the disastrous Bay of Pigs.

ADVERTISEMENT

For scholars of the presidency, Kennedy's failure to scuttle or fix the ill-conceived invasion of Cuba is a classic case of the insufficiency of charisma alone. No quips, grins or flights of rhetoric would do. Kennedy needed on-the-job training, as he later admitted to a friend: "Presumably, I was going to learn these lessons sometime, and maybe better sooner than later." Unfortunately, when a President gets an education, we all pay the tuition.

Barack Obama basks in comparisons to J.F.K., but this is one he'd rather avoid. In the run-up to what could be the decisive contests for the Democratic nomination, Obama's relatively light political rÉsumÉ - eight years as an Illinois legislator and three years in the U.S. Senate - continues to be the focus of his rivals' attacks. Hillary Clinton advertises her seven years in the Senate and two terms as First Lady, saying "I am ready to lead on Day One." And the message has gotten through: by clear margins, voters rate her as the more experienced of the two candidates. The fact that this hasn't stopped Obama's momentum doesn't mean he's heard the last of it - not with John McCain, who has spent 26 years on Capitol Hill, the likely Republican nominee. "I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced," says McCain. "I know how the world works."

Obama's credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors. Depending on what your leanings are, you could compare his work history - lawyer, state legislator, Washington short-timer, orator - to Abraham Lincoln's, or to a thousand forgotten figures in politicalgraveyard.com. The question of experience takes on added bite this year, though, because the next President will inherit a troubled and menacing satchel of problems. From the Iraq tightrope to the stumbling economy, from the China challenge to the health-care mess, from loose nukes to oil dependence to (some things never change) Cuba policy - the next President will be tossed a couple dozen flaming torches at the end of the inaugural parade, and it would be helpful to know that this person has juggled before.

But if one moral of the Bay of Pigs is "Beware of charisma" or "Timeworn trumps callow," what do we make of the mistakes and miscalculations of deeply experienced leaders? Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed court-packing scheme, for example, or Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy? For that matter, Kennedy would not have faced such a harsh early tutorial if the venerable warrior and statesman Dwight D. Eisenhower had not allowed the Cuba-invasion plan to be put in motion during the last of his eight years as President.

Wouldn't it be nice if time on the job and tickets punched translated neatly into superior performance? Then finding great Presidents would be a simple matter of weighing rÉsumÉs. Take a Democrat like Bill Richardson - experienced in Congress, in the Cabinet, as a diplomat and governor - and have him run against Republican Tom Ridge, a former soldier, governor and Director of Homeland Security, with the winner chosen by a blue-ribbon commission of all-purpose elders. The Danforth-Mitchell commission, perhaps, or O'Connor-Albright. But it has never worked that way, which is why Lincoln's statue occupies a marble temple on the Mall in Washington, while his far more experienced rival William Seward has a little seat on a pedestal in New York City. "Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook and a host of other factors," says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith. "Character is your magic word, it seems to me - not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it."

There's something egglike about the concept of experience as a qualification for the highest office. At first blush, the idea appears to be something you can get your hands around. Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to cajole the Congress, understanding when to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when to call on the National Security Council - that sort of thing. But bear down even slightly, and the notion of experience is liable to crack and run all over. If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along. Lyndon Johnson, for example: his experience as a master legislator no doubt helped as he steered his historic civil rights and welfare agenda to passage. By the end of two years as President, however, "he was out of gas," recalls Johnson aide Harry McPherson. The longer Johnson was in the Oval Office, the more feckless his presidency became.

Was it Franklin Roosevelt's experience as governor of New York that gave him the power to inspire in some of the nation's darkest hours? Or was that gift a distillate of his dauntless battle with polio? To a keen student of human nature, all of life offers lessons in how to lead, inspire and endure. Lincoln's ability to apply useful lessons from his motley experiences was among his most striking traits. When Ulysses Grant explained his grand strategy to defeat Lee by attacking on multiple fronts, Lincoln immediately thought of a lesson in joint operations learned years earlier on the farm. "Those not skinning can hold a leg," he said approvingly. For other temperaments, no amount of schooling, no matter how specific, will do. Richard Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator and Vice President; he watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best-organized administrations in history. When Nixon's turn came, though, his core character - insecure, insincere, conspiratorial - led him to create a White House doomed by its own dysfunction.

Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine. At the same time, the value that voters place on rÉsumÉ is constantly shifting. James A. Baker III is an authority on this. In 1980, he managed the campaign of his well-credentialed friend George H.W. Bush, under the slogan "A President we won't have to train." But the public mood was sour on Washington, and victory went to an outsider, Ronald Reagan, who had never served in Washington. Eight years later, the mood was stay the course, and Bush's experience as Vice President was his ticket to victory. Then the atmosphere turned again, and in 1992 the public demanded someone new. Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."

Countless words have been devoted to the presidency, and still its dimensions remain indescribable. Two words that recur poignantly are power and loneliness. Former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta recalls a moment in 1994 that for him expresses the intersection of these burdens and the essence of the office. Bill Clinton had called for a military dictator in Haiti to step down, and the crisis had ratcheted up to the point where "the ships were moving, the Navy SEALs were on alert." Some of the most experienced statesmen in Washington "were all standing around the desk saying to Clinton, 'You've got to make a decision.'" (After Clinton ordered the 82nd Airborne Division to start flying toward Haiti, the dictator backed down.) A President can take counsel from the most eminent advisers in the world, but in the end, only the President can make the fateful decisions. Some decisions are too hard or too weighty to be made at a lower level. "It's about that moment," Panetta says - that decisive moment.

When Americans pass over the best-credentialed candidates because their heart or their gut leads them elsewhere, they are only reflecting a visceral understanding that the presidency involves tests unlike all others. They are, perhaps, seeking the ineffable quality the writer Katherine Anne Porter had in mind when she defined experience as "the truth that finally overtakes you." An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a rÉsumÉ. View this article on Time.com

Great article!!!

McCain
............bold

Hillary
.............visionary, cunning, patient, bold

Obama
..............cunning and eloquent

Overall, McCain does not have the vision to move the country forward into the 21st Century. With him, America will miss the chance of becoming a great modernized nation. We WILL be stuck in the oil age.

Obama, is too lightweight. This man needs time and he's going to make a lot of mistakes, if he becomes President. We dont have the time to be put under an experiment, right now. With Obama, we will be stuck with experimentations.

Hillary, she's the perfect candidate. She's got the right mix. She's not too old like McCain, nor too young and lightweight like Obama. She's perfect. She's got and has the strength and patience, to bring America into the 21st Century. She is the ONLY candidate that can modernize America. Bill Clinton moved us into the internet age. Hillary will move us into the space age.

In the discussion of charisma and inexperience, one historical aspect sadly gets forgotten. Behind JFK was one of most astute statesman of the time Joe Kennedy Sr. (possibly the smartest Kennedy yet). When FDR needed to clean up after the Crash of '29 that directly led to the Depression, he called on Joe Kennedy Sr to head the newly formed SEC. When FDR couldn't handle the anti-war (WWII) heat (and Joe Sr. was leading the fight from within the party) from majority of Americans, he despatched Joe Sr. to UK as the Ambassador to that nation to get him out of the way. That was the political acumen and power of Joe Sr.

Joe Sr. was living his dream of the Presidency through JFK. He knew what inexperience could do in the WH. He put the more astute and thinking Bobby as the Attorney General and packed the Kennedy people in the WH.

So comparison of JFK inexperience with that of Senator Obama may not be an appropriate comparison.

The article above is possibly the most even-handed analysis I have seen. One aspect to factor in into the discussion is Hillary is not pure experience. She has charisma, intellect and excitment. It is just that Obama is far superior in the charisma and excitment department than Hillary. On the intellect front, he is at least as smart as Hillary; he definitely is more poised and quicker on the uptake.

There is no question, Senator Obama is no W. He is an extremely fast learner; he matured and grew in front of our eyes with each debate. Debates were Senator Clinton's strong suite and she was handily winning in the early debates. In the last debate, I thought Hillary had just a slight advantage, if at all.

I like how Obama organized his campaign. He really has beaten Hillary with his organization skills and plan. If he can put together a group and organize like that, just think what he can do to clean up our federal agencies. The EPA, CPSC, FEMA, I want Edwards to be the Attorney General and clean up the justice dept., the list goes on and on. As far as taking on McCain, he handled that just fine - gave it right back at him, pertaining to the Al Quida in Iraq slip. I think he is right on Pakistan also. While Bush and Cheney have been giving Mursurraf, whatever his name is, billions, he talks out of both sides of his mouth and Al Quida grows in Northern Pakistan. I wonder if Mursurraf gives Bin Laden some of our money we give him, sure feels like it. If there were actionable, credible intelligence that Al Quida is in N. Pakistan, and the president of pakistan won't get him/them we will. Thats what I thought I heard Obama say. McCain tried to get him on that one, but I think it failed because many Americans agree with Obama on it. What are we afraid of Pakistan now? The dems need to get bin laden and I think Obama will.

I think Senator Obama's success is in large part is his message, his charisma, poise and raw and abundant intellect. Senator Obama was ready for a marathon

Senator Hillary's problem was the campaign was very smug and expected the whole thing to end after Iowa and New Hampshire. They planned for a sprint. They didn't see the Obama tsunami coming. And when it came they thought they could wish it away.

I think Hillary should go all the way till Senator Obama gets the majority of delegates, if necessary all the way to the convention. If the mood is swinging towards Obama, then the Senator from Illinois should have no problem sweeping up at the convention. Both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters should be convinced their candidate got a fair shake. Democratic party establishment would short change either of the candidates at the risk of having a big chunk of voters not turning up during general elections.

If we are sure we know how to beat McCain in the general, wouldn't it be better to tone back now and beat him in the general as opposed to fortifying the elemnts of the republican party who don't want him to be the nominee?

The entire premise of Senator Obama's campaign is the one "bad" judgement of Senator Clinton.
However, with Senator Obama, we do not have any idea of what his judgement would be on any of the major issues confronting the country today. A speech during an election campaign, however crucial cannot be a substitute for a vote on the floor of the Senate that has impact on National Security. On the other hand, there is a public record of decisions she has made in 35 years of very visible experience. Voters should balance her judgement factoring in all the decisions she has made. Obama's lack of a track record cannot be used to conclude he has good judgement. He is extremely smart and the chances are quite good, on the balance, he will show good judgement. In the same token, Hillary is just as smart if not more. She has proven she learns from experience. That should count for something. We know where Hillary stands from the actual work she has done. With Obama, it is from the "poetry of a campaign". A lot of things are said during the campaign. And Senator Obama cannot claim he is any different than all the other politicians. See what he done with respect to public campaign funding. Nothing wrong with that; just that he is not above politics of a campaign.

Also, I am not sure the vote to authorize the President on Iraq was a bad vote because:
- The country was at war with Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. In times of war, it has been an accepted practice to stand behind the President.
- Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the region and had to be contained. There was credible worry he had WMD. A threat of war was a good stick for the President of US to have to contain him. The authorization was expected to be that stick, and nothing more. Many Senators including Senator John Kerry voted for that stick. It is unfortunate President Bush lacked integrity to follow through on his assurance to Senators, including Senator Clinton that it would be nothing more than a threat to attack Iraq.

Yes, Hillary voted to authorize the war, but Hillary and the rest of the senators, shouldnt be penalized, so harshly.

They didnt run the war. Bush and his team RAN the war themselves, without inputs. Bush and his team should SOLELY bear the weights of making a bad call.

I guess we need to change the law. Congress can authorize the war, but the President will have to seek counsel from Congress, to proceed.

One thing about Hillary is she makes mistakes, but she learns from it and she fights to move on and be better.

Like a poet once says " someone who has not made a mistake, is someone who has never done anything".

Hillary trusted the American government and now she voted for the war. It was a mistake, but it was an HONEST mistake. AFthe this mistake, she made ways to change the course and pull the troops out.

One thing about Obama, he is a parrot. He WAITS until Hillary speaks of a plan, and then, he just copies her. Bottomline, he's not innovative enough. He needs time. There's a lot of research that needs to be done and he's not ready on Day 1.

the important thing about being a leader, is recognizing, that you have made a mistake and you are willing to change the course.

Looks like Obama is supporting a very preliminary draft that Clare McCaskil is working on to make sure any child born to a U.S. citizen serving in the U.S. armed forces in another country is a u.s. citizen. That looks like good judgement. Looks like Hillary has accepted $170,000 from a company being investigated for sexual abuse of its employees for years. That looks like a bad judgement. I knew Bush was going to attack Iraq before the Supreme Court ordered the votes in Florida to stop being counted. If I knew it, they should have too. I knew not to trust him, they should have known it too. They stuck their thumb in the wind, and went with popular opinion instead of having the guts to stick with what they believed. That cost Kerry the presidency and it is what will cost Hillary the presidency and they both deserve it.

I want know more over the remarks of Mr Mckain singing: "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." If I said that or Bom, bomb, bomb Washington, sure I would be in jail, candidate for waterboaring or any kind of torture. But I heard some said that was just a joke. How many poor pepople are in prison because they joke around? I think this a very important issue to adress, and not let pass clear. That show who Mr Mckain really are, a prisioner of the dark machine of war that govern now this country.

I want say that i'do not like Hillary because i do not like nepotism, and sure pass the presidency from father to son or husband to wife in a country where more that 50'000.000 have credencials for be president, is just nepotism. But if she win legally the nomination, I will vote for her. BUt if superdelegates go againts the vote of the people for the rest of my life I will vote for the candidate that will able to hurt any democrat in any office position. Because republicans, robe democrats. But if democrats robe democrats, I'm my fami;ly and all my descendents until the 70 generation, will be out of the democratic party.

OBAMA, OBAMA!

Thumbs up to Barack Obama for attacking John McCain about the economy and Iraq. Obama needs to keep on attacking. That's the luxury he has with John Kerry backing him up. When John Kerry has your back, you can attack ANY REPOOPLICAN at free will.

I was a John Edwards supportor at first, because I thought that Obama was inexperienced. Now that John Edwards stepped down, I thought about it. Barack Obama is the right choice. OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.

MSNBC has been aggressivelly against Senator Clinton. Mark my words the scrutiny and negative attacks by MSNBC will start when he becomes the nominee. These guys are too scared to be branded liberals and will start their attack (not reporting but attacks) of Senator Obama when Fox starts. Is it spinelessness or is it because the hosts of these shows benefit so much from the Bush Tax cuts they would do anything to get a Tax-cut Republican into the WH.
Karl Rove has been advising Senator Obama publicly on how to beat Senator Clinton. Fox News channel, the indicator of the radical right propaganda has been absolutely silent so far on Senator Obama and constantly going after Senator Clinton. Why could that be? Could it be the radical right is convinced it is a lot easier to beat Senator Obama in the General.
See how Fox News goes aggresively after Senator Obama when he becomes the nominee and see how the mainstream medi follows Fox out of utter fear they will be branded "liberal" if they don't. There has been no serious scrutiny of Senator Obama by the press so far!

MSNBC has been aggressivelly against Senator Clinton. Mark my words the scrutiny and negative attacks by MSNBC will start when he becomes the nominee. These guys are too scared to be branded liberals and will start their attack (not reporting but attacks) of Senator Obama when Fox starts. Is it spinelessness or is it because the hosts of these shows benefit so much from the Bush Tax cuts they would do anything to get a Tax-cut Republican into the WH.
Karl Rove has been advising Senator Obama publicly on how to beat Senator Clinton. Fox News channel, the indicator of the radical right propaganda has been absolutely silent so far on Senator Obama and constantly going after Senator Clinton. Why could that be? Could it be the radical right is convinced it is a lot easier to beat Senator Obama in the General.
See how Fox News goes aggresively after Senator Obama when he becomes the nominee and see how the mainstream medi follows Fox out of utter fear they will be branded "liberal" if they don't. There has been no serious scrutiny of Senator Obama by the press so far!

Republicans keep talking about the 3 legs of the Conservative leg. Actually, since Reagan, there has been a 4th leg- the Social conservatives, the National Security/ Tough on Crime Conservatives, the Fiscal Conservatives and now the Tax-Cut (Supply Siders) conservatives.
Very clearly George Bush has not be a fiscal conservative, he has been a tax cut conservative.
Mitt Romney has been the strongest tax-cut conservative and could that be the reason the vast majority of the radical right (which is not a huge money making machinery) had buyers remorse when he dropped out.
If Republican Party establishment really believed in Social Issues are the defining issues, wouldn't they have rallied behind Huckabee. The fact they haven't is interesting. Mike Huckabee is a populist who is ignoring the Extremely Rich (which includes the radical right establishment, leadership, talk-show hosts and talking heads on TV). How can they support Huckabee if they cannot be sure he will "stay the course" with tax cuts.

To me a s Conservative McCain has been very appealing because he was a strong fiscal conservative; he stood up against Bush's Tax cuts. But now he has signed the pact with the Radical Right establishment on Tax Cuts.

Republicans need to lose the WH in order for Republicans to go back to their Conservative roots- Fiscal Conservatism, Foreign Policy Conservatism (remember there was a time when Democrats were the party of War, since Reagan, Republicans have moved away from sound Conservative principles on this issue) and Strict Consultion constructionalists (that includes a wall of separation of church and state, States'e Rights- that was thrown out the window in Gore v Bush 2000 Supreme Court decision- and Judges not legislating from the benches- now we notice the radical right judges legislating right wing areas from the bench, or at least trying to).

Once again we notice the Democrats have are in self-destruct mode by nominating someone whom the radical right and their media apologists have propping up. The Clintons can win elections and Hillary has been winning in spite of such aggresive and nasty attacks from the media.
And Obama's hero is Ronald Reagan.

Tim Russert now claims he was balanced because he asked BC Senator Obama a tough question with respect to Minister Farakkhan. Those who watched the debate know Tim didn't even follow through on Senator Obama's response. Compare that the aggressive tone he used with Senator Clinton throughout the debate, didn't even allow her to complete her response to her question. Compare that to the constant and continuous attack by MSNBC on Senator Clinton.

Doesn't this justification by Tim seemed to have been picked up from the Fox propaganda channel where they will have their token tough question on a Republican and go on aggressive offensive with everything Democrat.

If anybody is fooled into thinking MSNBC is doing this because they are active Obama supporters. Wait till Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and Fox News Channel starts their usual Democratic attacks and see the spineless mainstream media falling in line and shamelessly aping the Fox propaganda channel.

In the interest of full disclosure the voting public should demand a full disclosure on the benefits Tim Russert has accrued because of the Bush tax cuts that Senator McCain has been brow-beaten to accept to continue.

My values align with Huckabee :) I like the guy, but I have always voted Demo, due to their passion to help improve the lives of Americans.

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as "gutless." One Chicago pol says that "the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone."

Obama's brash self-confidence led him into his only big political blunder. Prodded by the Daley machine, he challenged Bobby Rush, an incumbent Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, in 2000. Rush pounded Obama by more than 2 to 1 in the primary. "He was blinded by his ambition," Rush told the New York Times last year.

Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

Voting for a candidate is always an act of faith -- a belief that the politician will win a mandate that allows him to transcend his own past limitations and those of his party. Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

No one who has watched Obama's sweep toward the nomination would say it's impossible that he can be the great uniter. I just wish we had more evidence.

What good is judgement if you dont show up to vote at all?

As for McBushain, (McCain), dont brag too hard about supporting the surge. It actually TOOK the democrats and the American people (losing seats in Congress), to force Bush to re-visit his policies on Iraq. Bush finally realized he's benchmarked and needs to push for progress, resulting in making the surge a 'do' or 'die' mission.

I believe we want our President to make mistakes. He or she is only human, and we'll forgive, but in making mistakes, you have to correct your behavior.

I'm an ice skating fan and I love watching the World Championships figure skating. These athletes push either and they make a lot of mistakes, but along the way, they learn to correct their mistakes, change coach and change their practices. The result, winning at the Olympic.

The bottomline, patience, perseverance, faith...

"What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?" Obama asked of the former first lady at a town-hall meeting. It was a reference to dueling te