Rasmussen and Gallup lean Republican - and Hillary Hawk is their preferred Dem.
But Edwards leads in Repub matchups in most state polling.

Hillary is in the strongest position of all the candidates (democrats and republicans).  She’s achieved this through diligence, strength and hard work which is further proof she has what it takes to be an effective commander-in chief.  Looking forward to another of her superior debate performances tonight.

Hillary Clinton - Ready to Lead!

I love you guys-Van and J merle. Keep up the good work.

Ahh...another Clinton $candal - this time - Chri$tians!
The Clintons will use any mean$ to grab more power.

John Edwards will be a great president!  WooHoo!

How can Oil at 80 bucks a Barrel be 1000 % higher today than 10 years ago when it was 8 bucks a barrel , and the demand has not been raised 1000 % ?? So was the Clinton Administration making deals for cheap oil and in exchange for access to American benefits to the OPEC regimes , for the price of Oil to be Cheap , was this the result of all those Donations to the Clinton Library by Saudi officals , and all this at the time when the Cheap Oil was causing Great Poverty to the Middleastern People , and as a Result hatred rose up out of the demise of the people , and today has resulted in the violence we face ??
Also now that this has caused a focus on the dependence for oil that we share with the rest of the industrialized nations , and if we leave the Middleast and destablize the region , Iran and Syria will take control of the region and cut off the flow of the oil , and Hugo Chavez aligns with Iran and Russia joins the side of Iran , then the United States and the European Unions will lose 60 % of their Oil energy requirements overnight with now backup replacements of these vital resources that we depend on for our production of food , and overall economic functions , and at this point , the US and Euro currencies collapes , and at a time when we need to trade for other food ingrediences and imports of other goods , how will we keep stability in our country if we are broke from these events unfolding , and are cut off from the rest of the world , Isolated by our own economic collapes ???

A question on people's minds seems to be how meaningful Hilary Clinton's lead is.  They compare her with Howard Dean or Bill Bradley.  Those comparisons would be more meaningful if it was Barack Obama who had the lead.  Hilary is not running on the excitement of novelty.  All her negatives are already under the microscope.  What is emerging is her effectiveness and her stamina as a long distance runner who has been getting beyond her negatives throughout her post first lady political career.  Of course, it always is a good idea not to count the results before the votes are made.  But it is going to take more than a modest mistake to derail Hilary.

Susan, Miami says:
"Oh all you frightened scaredy cats are soooo funny. You make up stories about the Clintons, embellish them and quake and quiver when Hillarys name is mentioned. She has shown intelligence and grace as well as the upmost professionalism and class."

WOW!! What color is the sky in your world?

How come no one talks about the Democratic Partys support for Amnesty for illegal aliens? A vote for Hillary is a vote for North American Union.  Hillary gets her money and marching orders from same people who support George Bush.  Her stand on Iraq war and amnesty for illegals is same as Bush.

likely voters.  HRC is a favorite with the dems but not in the general.  Dems don't know how to pick a canidate.

Merle:

I always believed in Scorched earth policy....
Let's see Hillary get out of this one.

Bill had better be careful going around and threatening media outlets.  Why GQ killed the story is very strange indeed.  He walks into an office and starts threatening people, he better realize there are a lot of offices with cameras and microphones in them.  

Bill CLinton as Boss Hogg.  I love it.

Susan in Miami:

better get ready for the criminal indictments against the Clinton's girl!  The press is digging deeper and deeper, sooner or later they are going to hit pay dirt and all the threats and beat downs that Bill Clinton will use will not stop the stories from going public.

How could Hillary sweep the networks?  It's called clout.  She's got it, the others don't.  It's not such a bad thing for a president to have.

hey, Bunny, Winston-Salem

I watched Hillary on FOX's interview (on YouTube).I LOVED her response to Chris Wallace! She didn't laugh on the other talk shows because the interviewers were not going for the cheap shots. They asked serious questions and she answered seriously. I was inspired by Hillary to decide not to blow a gasket ever again over the Ann Coulters, et al, of the world. Like Mom said, they are trying to get your goat. She (and Hillary) were right: when FOX News attacks, Just Laugh.

RuthieM, East Stroudsburg, PA / clinton is owned by the corporate lobbyists, the media is owned by the same corporations, that is the way our system works. ask van, maybe he/she has something in his ammo pack (van also feeds off of the same corrupt money) that can explain it

As someone trained in CIA/FBI interviewing techniques; I know that the laugh is an uncontrollable delaying technique to allow her to come up with her either spinned, or flat-out lied answer.  A truthful response from an interviewee is quick and does not require a delaying response.  The laugh is a delay intended to let the brain have time to formulate a response; if she were just relaying her actual thoughts, not trying to "spin" them for TV consumption, there would be no laugh.  See how many times, not just her, but any of our politicians do "delaying" techniques like a laugh, or repeating the question, or using some other diversion/delay tactic before they get to answering a question...you'll see how often we get a truly honest answer from any presidential candidate.  Watch them for when they answer directly and without delay; then you can be relatively sure they're telling you what they really believe as opposed to what they think they should say.

I would think that most Americans would be exhausted of the Clintons !
Let us not forget that Bill the Trickster Clinton is the one who cashed in on NAFTA and was paid big bucks for the transfer of manufacturing shipped over seas depleteing the American workforce to a very small percentage !
The Clintons also carried out some of the rare furnishings from the Whitehouse when the left.
These two characters are thieves with silk purses.
I have never seen a guy in Bill Clinton's position  and Hillary who get by with as much as they do and still act like they are friends of the poor and middle class.
Why doesn't someone throw up NAFTA to Hillary in the debates ???

Regarding Hillary's laugh during the Wallace interview, I agree it was contrived, but that is television. Look, millions of people are watching, some only for seconds, so they see her laughing and happy, she projects positively, even though it's a nervous response. All successful TV people project a happy go lucky image - remember Ronald Reagan? One more point - if you want to dissect body language on the Fox interview, try going back to the tape and focus on Chris Wallace's smile.

Sierra SF:  I respectfully disagree with your analysis of Senator Biden's plan.  There is nothing "imperialistic" about his plan.  It calls for a political solution agreed to by the Iraqis, much like what was done between the various sects in Bosnia.  Biden's plan provides the framework for a political settlement between the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis to stop their civil war.  The plan is simply a starting point for political dialogue.  The details need to be worked out by the Iraqi people through their elected representatives in the national parliament.  So in that sense, the Biden plan does let the Iraqi people decide their own future -- peacefully, through political means, rather than through violence and civil war which is what will happen when the US unilaterally leaves the country.  Absent a political solution before US troops withdraw, there will be mass genocide in Iraq on an unprecedent scale.  I am less concerned about a Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north as I am about the US leaving the country before a political solution is in place.  Biden's plan for a tri-partite state with a decentralized federal government provides the best solution for stablizing the country.  To simply say "let the Iraqi's decide their own future" without regard for the manner or process in which that decision is made is to invite full-blown civil war, mass killings, and ethnic cleansing.  A decentralized federal government makes sense because Iraq is not and never has been a true nation state.  It is a fictitous nation-state created by the British Empire, and it continues to suffer the vestiges of European colonialism to this day by forcing three different sects to live under the autocratic rule of one sect.  Under Saddam, the Shia majority and the Kurdish minority lived under the harsh rule of a Sunni-led dictatorship.  Now the Kurdish and the Sunni minorities fear being forced to live under the dictates of a Shia majority, possibly a Shia theocracy.  Iraq is the "Yugoslavia" of the Middle East.  A decentralized federal system is its best hope.  It's working in Bosnia.  I say, give it a chance in Iraq.        

 

You're right.  Clinton always laughs when facing a tough question.  Really, it sounds more like a cackle instead of genuine laughter and is rather annoying.  I can only assume that she and her handlers think laughing or cackling makes her appear more human.

I hope Hillary does get the Democratic nomination in 2008 because she will never win the presidency. Silly Democrats may nominate her but sensible Americans won't vote for her because they don't want Billary back in the White House!

The Liberal Media is just waiting for the coronation but they are out of touch with real Americans! That is why Liberals want amnesty for illegal immigrants, so that the country will be less white than it is now, making it more likely for HRH to be crowned!

If the Democrats had any sense they would nominate Edwards. He is the only one in the field who has a real chance at the White House. This Jena black thing in LA will create a solid Republican South for any Democratic candidate except for Edwards!

Wake up Dems! You have a shot in "08 but not with Her Royal Highness, Hillary!

Let's see...how long into the debate before Dennis Kucinich is asked a question.

Vanreuter, NY NY: daily tracking polls mean less than the value given them because the organization doing the tracking can be infiltrated by any candidate's staffers. It can be said that because the results were skewed in favor of the infiltrator's candidate, they are incorrect, therefore flawed, inaccurate, and untrue.

How could Hillary sweep the networks?  It's called clout.  She's got it, the others don't.  It's not such a bad thing for a president to have.
Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:05 PM)

When Bush does it we Democrats call it intimadation...its what got us in this war Carrie...or don't you remember?  If she has nothing to hide why the intimadation tactics, with GQ, why did she need to speak in a control setting, why do they not want Chelesa picture in a resturant now...because they can?  I for one don't won't a President Democrat or Republican who tries to suppress or intimadate the media.  I am now having second thoughts about Hillary

Van:  My information is very inside.  But that doesn't matter.  I'll be interested to see the commentary on this site after tonight's debate.  It should be interesting.  Everyone should keep in mind that political polling in primaries is always very fluid, as is most polling.  The only poll that counts is the one on election day.  Just ask Prof. Sam Wang of Princeton University - I refer you to his meta-analysis of the 2004 presidential election.  My own prediction is that Edwards will not win in Iowa and the subsequent anti-Hillary vote in NH will be enormous.
   In any case, I support Obama because he has the most integrity of any of the top tier candidates.  He is cogent and doesn't speak the political doublespeak that I hear from Hillary. I haven't heard the pandering that I've heard from Edwards (who I actually like but he's obviously not my first choice). But the most important reason I support Obama is that, HILLARY AND EDWARDS VOTED FOR THIS WAR!
Obama/Webb '08

Don, Tulsa, OK writes: WOW!! What color is the sky in your world?

Wait.  It gets better, and much more funny.

If a candidate... such as Obama, Edwards, or even Dodd were to annouce that they plan to name their number 1 and number 2 choice for running mate, and key cabinet positions before the end of next week.... it would show some real out of the box thinking and leadership.  After the last 8 years, voters would love to know not just what candidate they are voting for, but what administration.  What an opportunity for someone to distinguish themselves from Sen Clinton.

The people voted for Dems in the last election, and they promised to 'bring the troops home.' They shouted it in congressional speech after congressional speech.

Now they are recommending some timetable or plan. Because they are afraid that taking a stand will make them look weak on terrorism.

Backing down made them look weak on everything. What happened to this parties soul?

Vanreuter, NY NY: daily tracking polls mean less than the value given them because the organization doing the tracking can be infiltrated by any candidate's staffers. It can be said that because the results were skewed in favor of the infiltrator's candidate, they are incorrect, therefore flawed, inaccurate, and untrue.

Sam W., Portland, OR (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:46 PM)


Who do you support Sam? Someone who trails in the polls?

Van

i only hope that hillary is dragged off camera to be arrested for the crimes her and her dirt bag husband have commited... shame on the defeatist cowards

The real question that America must ask is:
Are we prepare for another 4 to 8 years with the Clintons after the 20 we have gone thrugh with the Bushes and the Clintons?
Do we want another 4 to 8 years of nothing, except more bla, bla, bla.

The Rassmussen polls have also shown that John Edwards does substantially better than either Hillary or Obama when compared in head to head matchups against EVERY Republican candidate.  Will the Democrats once again, shoot themselves in the foot and nominate a weaker candidate to go up against the Republicans?  It looks like it.  If they want to win the election, they need to nominate Edwards.  

The gloves have to come off tonight!  The other Democratic candidates must make it clear that Hillary can win the nomination but she CANNOT win the general election.  She is unelectable...not just because people have doubts about a woman as commander-in-chief but because SHE IS HILLARY!  This woman carries so much baggage from her 15 years in Washington.  How the hell can she sell herself to the country as an agent of CHANGE?  As a Democrat, I watch in absolute frustration as Senator Clinton moves closer to being the party standard bearer in 2008.  I don't want another 4 or 8 years of Republican control of the White House.  I don't want Rudy, Mitt, Fred, or any other newly minted version of George Bush LITE succeeding the current idiot-in-chief.  There is NO DOUBT that the Republicans want to run against Hillary.  Nothing will turn out there disgruntled base like another Clinton running for the Oval Office.  They are even willing to stomach Guiliani and his liberal social views to guarantee victory in November, 2008.  Barack Obama has to stop being Mr. Nice Guy and tell it like it is.  Hillary cannot win this crucial election but HE CAN!  He represents REAL CHANGE.  Obama was right when it counted...long before the Iraq war ever began.  EXPERIENCE DOES NOT EQUAL WISDOM!  If it did, then the banner MISSION ACCOMPLISHED would have truly meant something when it was displayed. For all their years in government service (aka experience), Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made matters worse.  Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards...They ALL VOTED FOR THE WAR! No amount of mea culpas at this point can change that fact. Barack Obama is the one candidate the Republicans DO NOT want to talk about. Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich...even Bush himself are very public in touting a Hillary nomination.  THEY FEAR OBAMA!  Obama's candidacy is one of HOPE and a a REAL PROMISE of CHANGE! So I say to the Democratic field...tonight you need to speak candidly about WHO BEST REPRESENTS WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD STAND FOR IN 2008?  The American people do not want more of the same... They made their feelings known in the 2006 election. The opportunity for significant Democratic gains...in Congress and control of the White House will be SQUANDERED, THROWN AWAY... SACRIFICED on the altar of a Clinton defeat! Speaking as someone who voted and supported Bill Clinton both in 92 and 96, I say let's put the Clinton and Bush eras behind us...and with it all the partisan rancor and division of the country into red and blue.  Barack Obama can unite this country and reach across the party lines to find solutions to our nation's many problems.  

Does no one know how to use spell check anymore?  Seriously, if you do not know how to spell you should use it-----

Mike, Nashville, TN  {{I can only assume that she and her handlers think laughing or cackling makes her appear more human.}}

The trouble is, the tail always gives her away.

"Van:  My information is very inside.  But that doesn't matter."

Actually, it does matter. When you claim inside information that completely contradicts the available numbers, and the prevailing wisdom, you should be able to back it up. Are you a pollster for one of the campaigns? Are you with a campaign and privy to their internal polling numbers?

Fluidity aside, with a burgeoning lead of over 20 points (4-5 times the usual margin of error) with the smallest lead in any single poll this month being NINETEEN points, with the trend going up, your contentions don't seem to have any, "non-inside", information to give them credence.  

I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that there is no empirical (statistical) evidence to back up your claim.

Van

Hooray J. Merle Stanley from Westchester, NY! Plainly put and to the point.  It is hard to not overlook people's misogynistic attitudes in their posts: giggling (=feminine) is bad. What is apparent is that her detractors are absolutely tuned into to her and some even obsess over her mannerisms. I can't even bear to hear or see the current occupant of the White House much less spend time channel surfing to see how many networks he is on at the same time. I am surprised no one commented on her hair, as was done when she was first lady.
As for MSM's coronation of Clinton, it is up to each campaign to successfully court the fourth estate, in addition to the internet. Clinton has done this the best. Don't forget that a year ago this didn't even seem like a real possibility because of the nay-sayers. Where she is now is all because she is a better campaigner than her husband ever was. She is where she is now because she is who she is: disciplined, dedicated, determined. What I learned back in the microcosm of high school when I ran for class president applies to life in general: who you court and get behind you leading up to the election so as to create a sense of inevitability decides who wins the election. The vote is simply an affirmation. You heard it here first: Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in a walk. You should really be scared of that...
Expatriate Registered Voter

I notice van does not comment on the fact that donor numbers cant be minipulated like poll numbers and unlike polls they are actual fact not estamates using less than .001 percent of an actual field . Maby because his candidate has less than half the number Obama does. If your candidate has less donors ignore the evidence .

Angel-you are so right! We need someone in office who is not a Bush or Clinton...let's get some new blood in there!

Van:  Sorry buddy, I won't take the bait.  But I do stand by my assertion and after all, three plus months before the primary, my assertion makes the most sense.  Tom Dewey sure liked the polls in September of 1948, didn't he?  Face it man, Hillary just has too much baggage and the longer people look at her and her triangulating corruption (a la Dick Morris - who she allegedly hates), the longer they have to deal with this war (WHICH SHE VOTED TO AUTHORIZE), any lead that she may have in the polls on September 26, 2007, will melt away.  Anyway, are you more in love with your candidate or the polls?  Me?, I have a big fat man crush on Obama.  This guy is my president because he represents what is right with America and I will do my  damndest to get the word out in every way that I can.
OBAMA/WEBB '08

Hey Van....what about that bet.  I will make it easy for you.


Let's subtract the cost of cleaning the sofa and I will spot you the 260 HSU donars she had to give their money back ( she won't subtract them until after quarter end anyway).

She's so bad...what do you say....don't you have faith in her money machine  ( now, now you can't count GE money...she can't spend it yet)

Anyone that far ahead it the POLLS must have millions of dedicated supporters...isn't that what she said a month ago.  All it takes is $20-$30 each.

talk is cheap...people can and do tell pollsters anything...where do they put their MONEY  ( this day and time when people are on a tight budget it is very true).

Van ....I'm waiting !!!!

to jerry, corpus c... must be something in the water down there that makes you folks so stupid.

Barack  should mention that Hillary did not do her homework before voting for Iraq.  She failed to read the intelligiance reports that were available.  Seems like a BIG mistake to me!  

to jerry, corpus c... must be something in the water down there, get a clue. the bush administration is the motherlode of bad ideas and stupidity  

It's all over!  The oracle has spoken and the future has been set in stone - Hillary has been ordained to win the primaries and lose the general election.  Sorry Libs you'll have to whine and complain for another four years.  The country may be tired of Bush but aren't stupid enough to elect Hillary.

The people voted for Dems in the last election, and they promised to 'bring the troops home.' They shouted it in congressional speech after congressional speech.


[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]

Obama has got this one figured out.  First act as President?  Make Iraq the 51st state.  There, they're home.

The man is a genius.

"I notice van does not comment on the fact that donor numbers cant be minipulated like poll numbers..."

No, actually I don't comment on your posts, but if you insist;

So, the only number that can't be manipulated is the one and only number you can find where Obama may be leading? I am sure that it makes perfect sense to you, but I am not sure that anyone NOT supporting Obama really finds it very significant.

Did you know that if you buy Obama campaign merchandise, like a key-chain or t-shirt, that you are listed as a, "contributor"?

"The news that Barack Obama has been counting all the people who buy his t-shirts and bumper stickers as being among his record 258,000 campaign donors is causing something of a stir  today."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/who_are_you_wearing_barack_oba.html

"CNN alleged "creative math" in Obama's fundraising before debunking the allegation

During the July 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer repeatedly teased a report on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) fundraising practices by asserting that Obama is using "creative math" and suggesting he is "overselling his grassroots support" in reporting that 258,000 individuals donated to his presidential campaign in the first six months of 2007. Blitzer stated that this "new flap" is due to the fact that the campaign counted those who purchased campaign merchandise as donors. In his ensuing report, however, CNN correspondent Tom Foreman rebutted the suggestion that Obama engaged in "creative accounting," reporting that Obama is actually "obeying the law in all of this" because "[u]nlike most of his opponents, Obama sells his campaign merchandise directly, instead of outsourcing it," and the law requires that money paid for merchandise sold directly by the campaign be counted as a contribution."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707180004

"Like other candidates, he has worked hard to cultivate a network of bundlers, who can solicit the checks from individual donors for the legal maximum of $2,300 that are the mainstay of any major campaign. But to capitalize on his celebrity, Mr. Obama’s campaign has also employed novel tactics — like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions — to pump up his numbers and transform grass-roots enthusiasm into more useful forms of support. No other campaign is known to have listed paraphernalia sales as donations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There's more, but this should be more than enough to refute your contention that donor numbers aren't subject to manipulation.

Now I HAVE commented. It's just grasping at straws for Obama supporters at this point, and this is one more straw that won't hold.


Van

You Clinton haters are so transparent, it's disgusting.

He's a former PRESIDENT, of COURSE he'll have assistants; CEOs of corporations have assistants...my DENTIST has an assistant, my God!

Hsu was trumped up...considering Mitt Romney's co-Chair of his finance committee was indicted TWENTY THREE times...one of his STAFF members, while this Hsu guy is a donor.  That sure got coverage by the "liberal" MSM, huh?  

And Ki, how does it feel buddy?  Getting a taste of Bush's own medicine, huh?  Waaaa, waaaaa, waaaa.  At least they're not making up intel info on the sly, to justify a major quagmired "war".  

Read the ABA's report on signing statements..you want to see who is for the good of the American Constitution?  I'll give you a hint..It's NOT GWB!

Clinton '08!

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:35 PM)

Asking you to reveal something, anything, about your wild, in the face of the facts claims about NH, isn't trying to bait you. It's a reasonable request about an unbelievable claim.

So what you have is an opinion based on a belief that she has too much baggage and your upset over her vote of five years past?

You would find the progress in polling since 1948, like the advances in computer technology, medicine, manufacturing etc. to be simply amazing. If you have to go all the way back to, "Dewey Beats Truman", for an example, I think that speaks for itself.

I really wish you could reveal something that would lend SOME small degree of credibility to you contention.


Van

Van ....I'm waiting !!!!

Grace, NY (Sent Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:36 PM)


Wait no more. See my reply to someone else singing the same song above.

Van

Now I say good-day to you Gracie, good-day.

Hillary's Nose Is Growing

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:17 AM

By: Ronald Kessler  Article Font Size  




As Hillary Clinton rises in the polls, her nose grows longer and longer.

To be sure, she has never had any shame about making stories up out of thin air. After 9/11, Clinton appeared on national TV and claimed that when the two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.

Clinton’s arrogance was so profound that she did not coordinate the story with Chelsea, who wrote an article for Talk in which she described what she had been doing that day. According to Chelsea, she was on the other side of town in a friend’s apartment on Park Avenue South. She watched the events unfold on TV.

Nor does Clinton’s hypocrisy have any limits. When asked about the recent MoveOn.org ad suggesting that Gen. David Petraeus has betrayed the country, Clinton on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 23 called for an end to such attacks. “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country,” she said.

Yet three days earlier, Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org ad. Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, voted earlier that day but conveniently missed the vote condemning the ad.

Now that she begins to see her candidacy in the general election as a certainty, Clinton’s prevarications — largely ignored by the media — are becoming more frequent.

On Sept. 23, on "Fox News Sunday," Clinton said that she has “fought hard” for body armor . . .” She added, “I’ve stood with my colleagues to fight hard for armored vehicles because we knew that they needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren’t getting it.”

Yet last May, Clinton voted against the emergency supplemental bill to provide $1.6 billion for body armor, including advanced combat helmets; $2.4 billion to help protect against improvised explosive devices; and $3 billion for mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicles.

During her Sept 23 appearance on "Meet The Press," Clinton said that current strategy in Iraq is not working: “I will end our involvement at the level that we’ve seen that has not proven to be successful.” But in August, Clinton had said in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., that the so-called surge in Iraq is “working.”

Clinton’s prevarications about her vote to support the Iraq war are even more striking. On Oct. 10, 2002, she stated on the Senate floor: “It is clear. . . that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” On Sept. 15, 2002, she said on "Meet the Press": “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long term interests of our national security . . .”

Yet this year in the Democratic presidential debate on Aug. 19 in Des Moines, Clinton claimed that when she voted for the Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, she thought she was voting to support more diplomatic efforts. She said she “regret[ed] giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused.”

In fact, she voted against an amendment introduced in 2002 by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required more diplomacy. On the Sept. 23 "Meet the Press," Clinton made yet another misleading statement about that vote, saying she opposed the measure because she did not want to give the United Nations veto power over U.S. actions. But the measure did not give the U.N. veto power and explicitly said the U.S. has the inherent right to use military force in self-defense.

In fundraising appeals, Clinton has claimed the administration is spying on innocent Americans, when she knows that National Security Agency intercepts of calls and e-mails are to ping in on terrorists before they kill innocent Americans.

Last Sunday, when asked questions by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" and by Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation," Clinton engaged in prolonged cackling. In particular, when asked by Schieffer if her healthcare plan was a step toward socialized medicine, Clinton began to giggle uncontrollably.

Like her ever changing positions on Iraq, her contrived performance suggests that she thinks she can give almost any response to a question and get away with it.

“Hillary has a keen sense of entitlement,” Bay Buchanan, author of "The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton," has told me. “She doesn’t admit mistakes or learn from them. She believes in her own mind that she doesn’t have to take responsibility for things she’s done in the past. She can say whatever it is she wants to say today, and it’s as if the slate is clean and nothing has occurred before this.”

At a hearing on Sept. 11, Clinton told Gen. Petraeus that “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

In making that accusation, Clinton aptly described what our own reaction should be to her serial dissembling. If any other job candidate had such a record, only a fool would hire the applicant. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, it will say as much about us as about her.

Jasen.. I aggree with you sqell check can be a very resuorcfull tool

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