vanreuter, NY NY / despite the incredible amount of false info in the posts you have made here, if you ask the question, the only question that needs answered, who is the candidate that speaks they're mind every time they are addressed with a direct question and sticks by their answer, it's john edwards, not hillary clinton, who has a workable plan to insure every working u.s. citizen, john edwards, who can get the moderate dems and independent votes, john edwards, who is the only dem that can win the general election, john edwards, who is a conceited loser here being paid to post elaborate cannon fodder, vanreuter NY NY, you’re so easy it ain't even fun chief, drag out the calculator and prove anything I have said not to be a fact

Hilary said the change in tactics was working. What are we to consider the supposed "change in tactics"? That would be the surge of 30,000 more troops. What are you Hilary folks trying to imply? That she wasn't talking about the surge? Get a life ya'll. You sound bad.

Ralph B: She knew exactly how it would be taken.  You can't become as good of a politician as Senator Clinton without understanding teh media.  And she is obviously well-versed in the world of politics.

'The surge is working.' The surge is working?  What the hell does that mean?  Of course our fighting men and women, given the right equipment and enough troops, are brave and talented enought to knock the sh*t out of the hooligan Al Qaeda.  And, I don't take our troops' efforts for granted but we all know that we have the best fighting forces in the world.  We all know that with proper military management it is a given that we can beat any other army, especially the likes of those we are fighting in Iraq.  
    But what are we asking our brave men and women to fight for?  What is victory?  So what if we eliminate the Qaeda from Iraq?  They weren't there before we invaded this country.  We're only treating a supra-infection of a wound that we rendered, unnecessarily.  And really it's only with the co-operation of the Sunni Sheikhs in Al Anbar that are we are able to make any headway.  The Sunni are no longer interested in taking orders from their more radical brethren, Al Qaeda.  So we're finally getting somewhere, because victory in any guerrilla war depends on the co-operation of the local population.  And so let's say we get rid of the local terrorist assh**les.  Then what do we do?  Are we really going to be able to keep the warring Sunni and Shia apart, considering that their conflict is over 1300 years old?  Maybe we'll just have to install another Saddam-like dictatorship to keep the conflicted parties under control.  That would be rich, wouldn't it?  Could there have been any more of a waste of lives, money, time and effort?
   And for that matter, does anyone really think that the Iraqi's are better off now than they were under that blow hard, Saddam.  Yes, I know that he murdered many of his own countrymen (so like many of the fu**ed up dictators of the world).  But does anyone think that we have created an environment which is better for the Iraqi's since he was deposed?  We certainly did nothing for our own cause.  
    All I see is a diversion from the real source of terror, Osama Bin Laden.  All I see is the potential for a lost victory in Afghanistan.  All I see is the wasting, yes wasting of our precious soldiers in an ill-conceived and horribly mismanaged war.  All I see is the country of Iraq in utter chaos with the killing of many innocent men, women and children, leaving many of the remaining either severely wounded or without food or potable water, without electricity or proper treatment of sewerage.  I see ancient religious wounds, re-opened; wounds that have resulted in conflicts causing the death of anywhere from 100,000 to 650,000 Iraqis - depending on whose statistics you believe (far more than Saddam could have tried to kill in his wildest dreams).  All I see is an empowering of the Ayatollahs in Iran with us acting as their agent; the agent that rid them of their great obstacle, a Sunni member named Saddam, so that they could begin to establish a Shia theocratic crescent from Iran to Lebanon.  So tell me, someone, how is it that this surge is working?  What are we hoping to accomplish?  
    Does anyone think that we can deliver democracy to a nation without the institutions or laws that would be needed to precede the form of government that we hold so dear (remember that we had a 170 year tradition of democratic institutions in our thirteen original colonies before our revolution and it still took 11 more years before a Constitution, which is still evolving, could be written.  
    'Splain it to me Lucy, cause I don understand.  I don't know whether to be so angry that I could punch someone in the face or just allow myself to be so distraught that I could just break down and cry.  Consider that we, the greatest country in the world, the true distillation of the Judeo-Christian tradition could make such a horrible mistake.  It is just beyond my comprehension.
    I don't know how we are to extricate ourselves from this mess and how we are to right so many wrongs and then after that, take care of the real enemy (religious fanaticism, which in this case happens to be Islamic but believe me is not limited to them).  What I do know is that the surge was not the answer and if it was not the answer then it can't be working.  And not only do I hold G W Bush and his neo-con cronies responsible for this 'crazy Asian war' but I also indict the co-conspirators who authorized the president's use of force and then voted against the Levin amendment that would have provided for Congressional oversite.  There are no apologies that I can accept for this catastrophic misjudgment.  
    So, I will only start with a clean slate.  I can only consider those who had the wisdom to see  this war for what is was from the start, a catastrophe.  The three wise men include Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul.  For me it's Obama but I urge all of you to consider your votes carefully.  We can't ignore these unbelievable mistakes and shouldn't reward the egregious malfeasance of governance of the recent past.  We must place our trust in new leaders and we can only pray that God will give us the wisdom and strength, necessary for us to recover from these atrocious acts.  
Imagine, calling Obama naive.  What unmitigated temerity!
Obama '08

vanreuter, NY NY / van can't you figure out that people are seeing hillary as the deceitful, cold and uncaring republican clone that she is and none of your incredibly lengthy carefully edited posts can change that? I'm sorry I forgot for a moment you want hillary nominated so rudy will win, please forgive me, hillary is good, hillary is great, you’re a deal van

Edwards says: "The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning.”
What a classic exercise in psychological propoganda techniques: to condemn that which one does on a daily basis throughout his lifetime. Johnny two-faced!

I for one support our troops no matter what they have to do. But I have lost faith in the fact that no matter whether Dem or Repub , for which i am Dem., that Washington is for the elite and nothing more than vain attempts at reality will lead anyone to believe that the gov. is still by the people and for the people. We are no longer a strong nation but only consumers on a global market spending our credit to the limit.

Edwards is a clueless empty suit.

the clintons will prevail. they always do.

MK MO  You must get soooo tired dragging out the wooden cross, hammer and nails every single day. Do you think you have spilled enough of Senator Clinton's blood?
Please save your energy and tell us all your good and happy reasons for the vote you give to Edwards.
I think he too could be a fine president and I am glad you support him.

Yo Bush Republican, the last thing you want is Edwards as the Dem. nominee right? Tell the truth.

Hillary just pandering to the VFW.  Speaking out of both sides of her mouth.  It's going to get difficult with the double speak.  I love what Obama said at the VFW and I like want audiences response was.  That he told the truth even to a pro military group who supports the war and that he had guts.  One of the VFW members said- he would vote for Obama because he has guts and doesn't say everything a person wants to hear and that we need someone with guts in the White House.  The straight talking express has moved to the democratic side and Obama is the driver.

Jeff, I agree completely. This is the one thing Clinton has said in which she actually demonstrated an understanding of the situation there, and my view of Edwards is diminished by his criticism. It is very much parallel, in my mind, to criticism of Obama's words from people who don't seem to even understand what he was saying.

While I am not enthralled about anyone pandering to any crowd, I've always thought that the appearances at the VFW convention has always been one of just that... pandering.

I feel Hillary may have made a mistake with the overall electorate in her stance about the war. She comes across as disingenuous and needs to be clear on one point she has also made: she wants our troops home as quickly as possible. Our military role in Iraq is waning, as these men and women have given their "all" to serving when called upon to do so. They may not like it but they serve nonetheless. When they return home, the exhaustion sets in. How many more years of frustration will we all have to endure because of some idiotic fool in the White House wanted to go after Saddam? In better times, that sort of reckless abandon would have been cause for impeachment as there was no declaration of war by Congress. They were snookered just as many others were. Clinton was one who voted for the war and now she is not willing to admit her mistake. Why? She probably feels she did not make a mistake, in that she believed the story at the time. Looking back on that and admitting she made a mistake is not a sign of weakness. It is honesty and coming clean with the public. If she doesn't admit or recant her vote, then she still believes it was the right thing to do. Reality is probably much more complex than that, but she has some explaining to do if she is to win the hearts and votes of Dems in the primaries.

Edwards was correct in the challenge. Of all the top candidates on either side, John Edwards has the most complete package. He can make it happen, but it will be a long-shot in the primaries. The general election is looking to be a win for any Dem, given the group on the GOP side, but this could change.

What we have to be careful of in the general election in 2008, is the use of illegal tactics by the GOP to win. We need to quell the California division of the electoral votes. We need to be more vigilant in keeping hackers out of the voting computers that recently became a serious issue with the claims of some hackers to have gotten into these machines and had the ability to alter the votes. We need a fair election or our democracy is lost to the crooks, the power brokers who want it all and cook the books to get their ways.

"vanreuter, NY NY / despite the incredible amount of false info in the posts you have made here>"

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:19 PM)

Produce one False Post, and I'll leave. If you can't, YOU SHOULD LEAVE.

I DARE YOU. Let's see how big your mouth is now.

Van

She's positioning herself as a moderate, and it's going to work.

"hillary as the deceitful, cold and uncaring republican clone>" MKMO

More, "facts", from the angry irrational fringe.

Van

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY

Do you ever read stuff before you write your commentary?


Van

THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION IN IRAQ

THE IRAQI PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE A DEMOCRACY

Bush Republicans just call names

David Vittors:  "Bill's sodomizing an intern"
I think someone missed sex education class.

Van,

Richardson is not closing in on Edwards. Edwards is leading in Iowa regardless of what any polls, that fail to even start with an appropriate poll sample. He is no shoe in to win Iowa, and if I were to bet on it, I'd bet it was 50-50 right now. Richardson is polling 4th in the current name ID polling, which is reflective of the massive ad campaign he has run almost non-stop since the beginning of May. His total ad buy has exceeded all other candidates together. His support peaked and is on a downward spiral. He looked promising, but after opining that homosexuality is a choice (at a gay rights group forum- no less), blaming the screw up on jet lag (his schedule is no worse than the rest of the candidates) pulling out of a labor event he committed to three months earlier at the last minute, because he needed his sleep before the debates. Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich and Obama were able to make it to the labor forum the night before the ABC debate. Etc.

MK-MO you are also wrong about Edwards being the most electable Democrat. I agree Hillary is not electable. She could come close, but it would take a miracle (the GOP candidate taking over Mike Vick's dog fighting business, etc) for Hillary to win. For Edwards to win he would have to run a better campaign than I think he is capable of. The haircut is an indication of campaign stupidity. If he wants to spend that kind of money on his hair I could not care less, but being clueless enough to turn in the expense, or having a campaign treasurer who doesn't realize that the expense is personal and shouldn't be paid from the campaign funds where it is subject to FEC disclosure laws. Also his debate performance against Cheney was pathetic, and spotty this year.

With respect to Iraq   go to Biden's website, compare his actual detailed plan for getting out of Iraq with that posted on the other candidates website, and you'll see only one candidate has a plan. If a candidate won't tell you what they'll do, or how they'll accomplish it now, you risk finding out they have no plan, or it is unworkable. The time to look into the actual plans is is now.  

David Vittors:  "Bill's sodomizing an intern"
I think someone missed sex education class.

Looks like it's you that were out sick that day UnionB.  Look it up on Websters.

Bill Clinton did in fact sodomize Monica.

It is a shame that trying to work with the truth and the oppisition ,which is what drove us crazy about the repubs ,thier iability to work across the isle,would get you attacked for being mainstream,the surge is working troops mean we pacifiy an area ,what you cant do is continue a surge .What next,thats what to ask bush not hilliary there are still 18 months left that he is in charge of this fiasco .When she takes office we will see how things like the surge have hurt or helped but thin king she controls anything right now is stupid .This is george and the repubs all the way with democrats trying to support our country by looking unified now bush has let his coalition at home slip awawy demo senators who supported him now flock to get away THE UNITER HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

Van:

Yes, I do, but some of it is either inadequate or leads to the wrong conclusion i.e. the writer supports the candidate who is part of the problem.

For once and for all Hillary did not say the surge was working.  Leave it to the brain dead who only read headlines or what inept reporters report out of context.

The headline here is still erroneous because what she said only applied to limited success in a very narrow context.  First Read has yet to show her full remarks which clearly stated "a military solution will not work".

But then I suppose we all know Hillary is not Firdt Read's first choice among Dems.  How quickly they leap to Obama's wife's defense when she clearly says something but was can be characterized as misinterpretation.  They went to the trouble of reviewing what she has said on prior occasions to portray an innocent remark.

How easy it is too deny and still cut so close to the bone.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):