Biden is a glad handing blow hard w/hair plugs. What has this gas bag accomplished for the people of the sorry State of Delaware?

So much for the Biden campaign...Anybody named Carter who nominates you is just digging your political grave another five feet.  What great thing can be be achieved by having a Carter back you in your campaign for president?

What was that guy in the Boston Globe comparing the excitement of the Clinton's on Martha's Vineyard to Germany in World War 2??????  That is priceless, comparing the Clinton's to the Nazi's.

A little cold water on the face, to begin the week.

To those who don't believe that polls are real, as Teri Hatcher said in "Seinfield", "They're real, and they're SPECTACULAR!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Van

Cartesian logic; If the wind out of Corpus Christi is ignored by all, does it even make a sound?


Van

Jerry, I think Carter is seen entirely differently in Democratic circles than Republican circles. Besides, Democrats are smart enough to figure out Carter's kid isn't the former president himself.

Biden and his endorsers have an argument, but as much as it pains me to say this in August, it may be too late to ramp up the fundraising effort. The reason I say that is because he's had no money all summer, he also has no organization. So even if money starts rolling in this September and October - and its unlikely that will happen if it hasn't started already - he would be scrambling to match Obama-Clinton-Edwards in Iowa and Obama-Clinton in New Hampshire, in terms of opening local offices and hiring staffs.

On the Republican side, Huckabee has the same issues, though I think none of the frontrunners in that party have the local organization that the top two Democrats have, so there's less ground to make up.

Van no sound from down there...jerry/Monica is women hear me no MORE!

Regarding the value of "experience," I came across an amusing story in General Tony Zinni's (USMC Ret.) most recent book.   Zinni tells the story of someone asking Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and a brilliant strategist, about the most experienced person on his staff.  Frederick replied, "See that mule over there, he has been by my side in every battle... but in the end he's still a jackass."

My own extended comments regarding experience, specifically that of Senator Clinton, and her foreign and defense policy credentials, follow.

Best, -TR  

Albany Times Union
Words matter:
Voters could benefit from a re-examination of the Clinton-Obama national security uproar  
 
By THOMAS J. RALEIGH
First published: Sunday, August 12, 2007

Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barrack
Obama are engaged in a series of highly publicized skirmishes on
important national security issues. Conducting analysis that is both
superficial and one-sided, political observers have been far too quick
to agree with Clinton's suggestion that she is much better prepared to
serve as commander in chief than Obama.

On the heels of some confusing comments regarding the use of nuclear
weapons, and remarks delivered recently at Princeton University, Obama
finds himself under all kinds of scrutiny. Addressing the presence of
al-Qaida networks in Pakistan, Obama said, "If we have actionable
intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won't act, we will."

The suggestion of conducting uncoordinated, unilateral cross-border
operations into a nuclear-armed country that is already unstable,
coming from a candidate who has consistently asserted the limits of
military power, is as disconcerting as it is surprising.

Though Obama's recent clumsy remarks regarding Pakistan merit the
prize for "blunder of the week," Clinton's foreign policy statements
deserve equal critical scrutiny. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson
asserted, following Tuesday's AFL-CIO presidential forum in Chicago,
that candidates need to speak clearly and carefully when discussing
foreign and defense policy.

"Words matter," said Wolfson.

He's right.

During the CNN/YouTube debate last month, Clinton emphatically
asserted that she would not hold talks with the leaders of North
Korea, Iran, Cuba and other troubling regimes. Following the debate,
Clinton characterized Obama as being "irresponsible and frankly naive"
for expressing a willingness to do so. The general consensus is that
Clinton emerged from the debate and post-debate clashes as the
candidate with enhanced national security credentials.

There is an alternative assessment, however, one that suggests that
Clinton is an opportunistic flip-flopper. In October 2006, she
outlined her foreign policy views in a major policy speech before the
Council of Foreign Relations. Clinton said, "We should not hesitate to
engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on the diplomatic
front. We cannot leave the Middle East to solve itself or avoid direct
talks with North Korea. When faced with an existential challenge to
the life of our nation, President Kennedy said, 'Let us never
negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.' Direct
negotiations are not a sign of weakness. They're a sign of leadership."

Clinton also said, "We have to keep all options on the table,
including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right
opportunity present itself. Direct talks lets you assess who's making
the decisions what their stated and unstated goals might be. And
willingness to talk sends important messages; to the Iranian people,
that our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them; and to the
international community, that we are pursuing every available peaceful
avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."

In this speech, Clinton presents a world view and America's role in
international affairs starkly different than that of President Bush
whose foreign policy team, she convincingly suggests, has presented
the American people with false choices: Internationalism versus
unilateralism. Realism versus idealism. Posted on both her Senate and
campaign Web sites, it is an impressive speech; one that was clearly
intended to serve as an overarching national security policy statement
for her presidential campaign and to reassure foreign policy elites
that, as president, she would pursue a more practical, enlightened and
effective foreign policy than that of President George W. Bush. Or so
it seemed.

Alas, it now appears that Clinton merely read a well-prepared speech.
When juxtaposed to her comments during and following the recent
debate, in terms of foreign and defense policy, it is difficult to
ascertain what Clinton believes. Based on her conflicting and
irreconcilable statements, voters now have no idea how Hillary will
deal with an ascendant Iran and other threats, or how she will improve
the nation's standing overseas.

Far from illustrating her foreign policy savoir-faire, Clinton, by
suggesting that Barrack Obama is irresponsible and naive for
expressing a willingness to engage in direct talks with Iran and other
troubling regimes, something she herself emphatically and
unambiguously advocated only nine month ago, instead shows that when
the chips are down, and when her reputation for being tough is on the
line, Clinton will choose posturing over principle; the sound bite
over sound policy; in this case, a policy that suggests, inter alia,
that there will never be a stable and secure Iraq in the absence of
some positive understandings with Iran.

A candidate might be able to flip-flop on domestic issues and get away
with it, but not on matters related to war and peace particularly in
the midst of a wartime presidential campaign. Just ask John Kerry.

Up until now, the challenge facing Clinton was to explain her rather
abrupt about-face on the war a difficult but manageable task that
would have featured a frank "act of contrition" for what she has done
and what she has failed to do with regard to Iraq; an acknowledgment
that she failed to read in its entirety the pre-invasion National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq; a willingness to take responsibility
for her vote that authorized the invasion; an admission that for far
too long she mistakenly embraced the notion that Iraq constitutes the
central front on the war on terrorism; an expression of regret that
she failed to criticize, in a timely and constructive manner, the Bush
administration's failure to shape the strategic conditions for success
in Iraq.

She would also need to explain what she learned from these mistakes
and how it would affect her approach to foreign and defense policy in
general, and her decision-making during a crisis in particular.

It is becoming clear that this just isn't Clinton's style. At the
candidate forum in Chicago, she again asserted that Iraq is "George
Bush's war." This is regrettable. As someone who appears to admire
John Kennedy, she ought to recall not only how JFK took responsibility
for the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, but even more important, how he
learned from that painful experience and averted disaster two years
later.

Tuesday evening, in MSNBC's post-debate spin room, Clinton campaign
Chairman Terry McAuliffe suggested that a great number of Americans
can picture her as their commander in chief. Perhaps that's true. But
there are lots of people who find unsettling the prospect of electing
as president someone who is preoccupied, if not obsessed, by a
perceived need to project a tough image.

Picture President Hillary Clinton facing a crisis as acute and complex
as the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine that she is under tremendous
pressure from her Joint Chiefs to conduct military strikes somewhere
pick a place: Iran, Pakistan, Syria just as they tried to pressure
Kennedy to bomb the hell out of Cuba in 1962. The question is not: Is
Clinton tough enough to bomb Iran? The question instead should be: Is
she tough enough to withstand the pressure to conduct military strikes
if a more prudent approach calls for restraint and compromise?

In the end, we that is, the voters are left with the words of the
candidates. And whether the topic is the war in Iraq, dealing with
Iran, or the use and limits of diplomacy as an instrument of national
power, Clinton has been all over the map. If her Democratic rivals
fail to take her to task on the profound inconsistencies in her
national security policy positions, her Republican challenger surely
will not.

So who's the big winner as a result of the Clinton-Obama national
security hubbub? Though I'm tempted to say it's the Republicans, I
suggest instead it's the American voter.

The upshot of this ongoing debate may be a stirred, engaged and
discerning electorate that recognizes that we once again live in a
period of "maximum danger" (to borrow JFK's phrase) where there is no
place in the White House neither for amateurs, nor those prone to
posturing or bluster. An electorate that might look beyond the
presumed front-runners of either political party for a presidential
candidate, a genuine statesman to lead their country in complex and
perilous times.
---------------------
Thomas Raleigh is a retired U.S. Army infantry officer and military
diplomat. He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in the
21st Congressional District last year. His e-mail address is
thomasraleigh@nycap.rr.com.

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2007, Capital Newspapers
Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.

No one brings out the "haters" the way HRC does.  Hopefully democrats will wake up and realize that HRC=defeat 08

by Jill Zuckman

DALLAS -- Richard Collins, a Texas philanthropist, is one in a vast army of professional "Hillary haters" who are banking on Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

Like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election who denigrated Sen. John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, Collins and others are searching for just the thing that will crystallize the way voters think and feel about her.

And not in a good way.

Armed with new technologies and fueled by animus, they are bent on preventing "four more years" of Clintonism. Every old charge, it seems, is being repackaged and sold as new. Every rumor is given a new, blog-stoked currency.

The rise of the Internet has meant that more people are getting their message out without the expense of paper, postage or manpower. Anyone with a computer can weigh in on the political debate and alter a candidate's course, and Clinton opponents have started early.

For more, see the story in today's Tribune:

You know jerry, republiCANTS like you run around screaming "foul" everytime someone makes a comparison between the The G.O.P. (Gay Old Pedaphiles), Bush, and The Nazis.....yet you have no hesitation about doing it to the Democrats and Hillary.
If you really wanna' see some similarities to Nazi doctrine, take a good look at the Bush White House. Pre-screened questions at press conferences, ralley squads that are prepared to drown out protesters at Bush speeches, and removal of people who have anti-republiCANT, or anti-Bush t-shirts on.
In addition to being patented LIAR jerry, you are likewise a hypocrit. It doesn't matter though.....your party and your candidates are going down like the Titanic in 2008.
(By the way you STILL haven't given an honest answer as to what "Gigolo Rudy 'G'" or Mitt "The Squirrel Hunter" Romney have done to deserve being President.)

'Midwest Republican Leadership Conference, says that GOPers believe that Clinton as the Dem nominee could be in the shot in the arm the party needs'

We DON'T NEED A POLARIZING POLITICAL HACK !!
Hillary can't govern, the Republicans won't work with her (even if she did get elected!! a real stretch!)

The only hope the Republicans have for 2008 is for the Democrats to nominate Hillary.
A sizable minority of Democrats WON'T SUPPORT HILLARY
Independents WON'T SUPPORT HILLARY !!

Why go back to the dishonesty and corruption of the Clinton years ??

Remember when Al Gore ran for President in 2000 ?
He ran AWAY FROM THE CLINTONS !!
He selected Joe Liebermann as his running mate to show he wasn't as crooked and unethical as Bill Clinton !!
Why did Al Gore HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE HIMSELF FROM BILL ?
Because Bill was Crooked ? Dishonest ? Scandal plagued ? Polarizing ?

Democrats DON'T DRINK THE KOOL AIDE !!

Hillary can't win!! Hillary can't govern !!
Let's throw the bums out, not bring the bums back !

Oh wow, Im totally shocked (NOT)that the repub attack machine will go after Hillary real bad.... ah, they're going after ANYONE that gets the nomination. My God, they already called her a.... shhhh... lesbian! What is worse? It sounds like Cheryl, PA is the queen of Clinton haters herself.

Question - Is that an error in your report or did Obama really suggest 100,000 more police for New Orleans?  There are less than 300,000 people in New Orleans at this point.  One police office for every three people - I hope that is simply an error in the reporting.

Jill Zuckman better get with the program at the Chicago Tribune.  The Tribune is a Obama supporter and is not there to help out Clinton.

And, is there any particular reason the Tribune is putting editorials on their front page?  Opinion pieces are usual on some other pages then the front.

The GOP’s saving grace in an otherwise uphill battle, is not just Hillary as the dem nominee, it's Hillary today as a candidate, and Hillary last year as the 'frontrunner if she runs'.

Why has her name been in the news for over a year. It gets the Republicans riled up, hurting candidates like Obama who have a proven senate record of working well across the aisle.

In a recent poll of Iowa Republican caucus goers who were asked who would you caucus for, Obama came in 3rd with 7% (of Republicans!).  If Hillary wasn't in the race it would be even higher.

If the Clintons truely care about this country, then Hillary would gracefully bow out of the race.

7% is what he's garnering in some of the democratic primary polls too...is that supposed to be a good total?

"If the Clinton's truly care about this country", and they do, they will come roaring back to the White House as Presidents' Clinton, and begin to return the integrity that the, "integrity", administration of Bush and henchmen destroyed.

She will CRUSH the republican nominee, whichever, "Fatally Flawed", loser they toss out there.
Rudy ran away from challenging her in NY, and he'll run away this time too. I wonder what Rick Lazio is doing these days? How's about a Quayle/Lazio Republican ticket? here's a great campaign slogan for them

Quayle/Lazio- Two minds, without a single thought.

Van

bb: 'Oh wow, Im totally shocked (NOT)that the repub attack machine will go after Hillary real bad.... ah, they're going after ANYONE that gets the nomination.'

bb, the difference is that if the GOP goes after Obama or Edwards, they'll have to lie and make up smears.
If the GOP goes after Hillary, they just have to TELL THE TRUTH !!  It shouldn't be to hard for them.

Throw the bums OUT !!
Don't bring the bums, BACK !!

jerry does not seem willing yet to tell who his candidate is.  Surprise anyone?

The Repubs are just warming up their Hillary-bashing machine, not putting it into overdrive yet, because they want Hillary to be nominated, because they know that, given the smear they can put on her, and the hatred they can sow that'll get otherwise apatheic voters out, she is a guaranteed LOSER in '08.  Dem's don't drink Hillary's kool-aid!

When you write ridiculously long posts it is annoying.  Instead of commentig on the article we get yet another Hillary argument.   I wish you all would simply shut up.  Can we possibly talk about anything else.  I try to read something about the candidate I support and the same old group of people are blah, blah, blahing about HRC.  

I am a 42 year old professional female - I am supposed to like her, but... She is ANNOYING.  She is not the devil, not the saviour, just one big annoyance.  I can't take arguing about her until Nov 08.  Her, her minions, and her haters are driving me insane!

I love it.

Jack Carter, the carpetbagger who moved to NV solely to run for senate endorsed Biden? Sorry Joe, I love ya, but if Carter is the best you can do you should save everyone a few bucks and drop out now.

Hysterical.
The lefties talk about "attack machines" and the only name-calling is by them!

Merle---I'm still waiting for you to give your reasoning on what Hillary Clinton has done to deserve being the democratic nominee for President.....

you could use the experience word...but she has only been in New York 7 years and everything you mentioned about her name on a bill in the senate is either in committee or not even being considered.  It also goes to show that it takes an outsider to run New York Politics, since no one homegrown in the state seems to have neither the character nor the guts to take her on in the state.

Now, as far as I have posted before, Mitt and Rudy have way more experience then Hillary could ever gain in her lifetime.  Never seen Mayor Hillary Clinton or Governor Hillary Clinton.  She better get some experience and run her campaign and tell her hubby to stay the heck out of the way.  Maybe people will accept her more if she wasn't riding on her husband's record then her own.

When you read about people saying that in Massachusetts, that the Clinton years were just like the German years in WW@, it makes you wonder about people in the bay state.

Elizabeth....it would seem that the G.O.P. operatives who REPEATEDLY name-call, slur, and slander Hillary's name, and her record have accomplished their mission. They've made her an annoyance to you, in spite of the fact that you seem rather ambivalent to her otherwise.
This is exactly what the right-wing-nuts want. They know Hillary will defeat any candidate they have, and they are deathly afraid of her.
So they play this little "head game" that is specifically designed to make you, and everyone else think she's evil incarnate.
...and as for you Sierra, the G.O.P. and people like you have already LIED and made things up about Hillary. So who are YOU trying to kid?
The fact of the matter is that The Neo-Cons are going go after whoever the Democratic nominee is tooth and nail.
The difference is that, if you don't get your way and if Hillary does get the nomination, you're going to throw a temper tantrum and help them lie about her!
That's as good a reason as any I can think of, to oppose any candidate you support and give our FULL unconditional support to Hillary Clinton!

Hillary Clinton is the ONLY Democratic Candidate GUARANTEED to win in 2008!
She has name and facial recognition, she stirs up conversation and controversy wherever she goes, and she has the STAR POWER & GRAVITAS to energize The Base of The Democratic Party.
Hillary is the straw that stirs the drink.
Let's not make the same mistake we made in previous elections, of selecting the most "politically correct" candidate...over the most "CORRECTLY QUALIFIED" candidate.
Let's not make the same mistake of selecting a candidate we think will be most appealing to the G.O.P.
...and most importantly, let's be adult about this. Let's not rip our party, or the base of liberal voters in this country apart for fear that we won't get our own way.
The republiCANTS are scared witless of Hillary, and that's why they are attacking her. It's why they've BEEN attacking her for seven and a half years, ever since she first announced her candidacy for the Senate in 2000.
Sure this "Raleigh" fellow listed above, who disengenuously slams Hillary, is a Democrat.
But, do you notice that he is an UNSUCCESSFUL Democrat who failed to win so much as a primary vote.
That ought to tell you something.
Hillary is "The Gal" in '08' folks! We cant afford to nominate someone who doesn't have the experience, or someone who's been unsuccessful in national elections before.
Don't let this opportunity go by, we can win next year if we nominate the right candidate.
VOTE HILLARY for PRESIDENT in 2008!!!!!

Bruce....is Liddy Dole a "carpetbagger" for moving BACK to Carolina after living with her husband Bob in Kansas for so many years?
How about Mitt Romney, he's from Michigan.
But he couldn't win a congressional seat nor the Governor's Mansion so he moved to Mass.
Is HE a carpetbagger too?
Seems to me you're the only one attacking others for things people in your own party have done.

Sierra, the voters are not the ones drinking the kool aid.  They are the poor recepients of the media as a whole drinking the koolaid by the gallon (or like Chris Matthews who is hooked up to continuing flow of it) and they opining to the unsuspecting viewer how wonderful, experienced and smart Hillary is.
They already have the winner picked before the debates ever begin and spin to justify it.
The shame is that an extreemly intelligent and well informed candidate like Obama is spun to look the fool so the people discount him for concideration.
and when someone like Zbig (along with other foreign policy wonks like Steve Clemmons and even Richard Clark - who has donated to Obama) say his foreign policy is all right and Hillary suffers from stale and tired and failed thinking, the media suddenly quiets.  No on air discussion about Zbig endorsing Obama or that the foreign policy community are in the majority in seeing Obama as the one with new and correct thinking.  Heaven forbid the voters find out Hillary is wrong.
Or that Hillary has no real policy stand or ideas.  She just gives whatever retoric at the time sounds good and panders to whoever she is talking to.
It is far pass time for the on air media to stop giving Hillary a free pass and allowing her to slide by on wrong thinking.  Instead of hurrah they need to point out the failure in her thinking to develop any real policy or true stands on things.
And at the same time, they need to stop with the Obama is a rookie over his head storyline and start to be grown ups and realize the man has the right policies and has depth and is surrounded by some well respected heavy weights.
it is time for the on air media to tell the truth for once.

J.Merle - I don't think Hillary is evil incarnate and I certainly don't take my cues from the right wing.  We have been talking about the HRC pros and cons for 16 years.  I still haven't seen anything she has accomplished on her own.  She just doesn't impress me.  You seem to have adopted the HRC party line of "If they don't like her, they must have been brainwashed or are part of the right-wing conspiracy."  

That is one of the problems - the condescending attitude towards people who don't drink the Hillary kool-aid.

I support Biden.  Just a difference of opinion.  

Were would Hillary be in this race and in the view of any of the media who now proclaim her the second coming and give her a totally free pass on everything if her last name was not Clinton?
Would they be touting her so called great experience or that she is so commanding and 'majestic'(quote Matthews) or seen as even a serious contender with the same flip floppings and non stands or lack of policy if her last name was Smith and she was married to a surgeon?
The media is shoving an  empty shell without ethics or  anything to offer us, no vision and empty retoric and is a very wrong candidate that could cause us more damage on top of what the Bushies have done only because of her last name.
A last name, after the past 7 years, should have given the media and the people a clue, is not enough to make a good president.

I just want to know why a republican would move to Mass. to win an election?  Although Romney is an idiot, I guess he's a lucky one.

I Wouldn't Put A Lot Of Confidence In Anybody Who Worked For The Carter Administration Especially Not A Russian.There Were Two Presidents That Were Commander In -Chief By Default Yes You Guessed It The First Was Carter And The Other Were Gerald Ford.Jimmy Carters Administration Were A Complete (FAILURE)Ask Anyone Over 15 Years Old

Captain Sky
Carter was ELECTED President.
Also, Carter was AFTER Ford so shouldn't Ford have been the first CIC by default (according to your logic)?
Isn't the Supreme Court deciding the President kind of a default?  Maybe you should add W to your list?
Please do not try to rewrite history.    

Your mention of Obama's endorsement by ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, who you describe as "one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the Democratic Party," failed to mention the reason for his stature.  He was National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter.  Yes, he is also the father of MSNBC'S MIKA BRZEZINSKI, famous for refusing to read a Paris Hilton news story on Morning Joe.  But Zbig is not alone among highly respected Democratic foreign policy "experts" backing Obama.  Bill Clinton's first National Security Advisor, TONY LAKE, heads Obama's foreign policy team.  So what is all that hype about Obama's gaffes and inexperience about?  Do you guys ever report facts, not just the spin that James Carville throws at you?

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