Well, if you are against the current Iraq policy and feel that having our boys in a Civil War is wrong, then you should take the position that they should be brought home immediately.

Clinton is wrong, but Richardson is not the answer.

I am beginning to believe that the Democrats are following the 68 campaign of Dick Nixon.  They all have a secret plan but can't reveal that plan until after they have been elected.

Jointhe e-surge for Richardson. It's the only surge that's working.

Compared to her husband, I get a very clear impression that Hillary Clinton is fake and out of touch with mainstream America when it comes to ending this highly illegal war now. She seems to be too much in bed with the pro-war Israeli lobbyists in that she needs their vast money to secure the democratic nomination. Personally, I am supporting Barack Obama because he is far more interested in fighting for America's interests rather then Israel's interests.

'Senator Clinton has said she might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term -- nine years from now ... Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq. That is changing the mission, not ending the war."

What's the point of electing a PRO-WAR Democrat ?
We might as well just leave Bush in charge.
Hillary wants to attack Iran, while she's at it
(see Lieberman-Kyl)

...and actually...
His criticisms of Obama and Edwards do have some bite
If we can't get the job done in a YEAR....
Then, JUST GET OUT !!

Don't commit to fixing Bush's mistakes !!
IT CAN'T BE DONE !!

if you think the republicans have the answere you have not been listening.if you want unbridled free interprize,a supreme cammander.free check book[19 billion gift to banks & loan co.no checks & balnicing,no raises etc.a preciption drug bill that rewards the drug co.vote republican.

if you want more of the same, vote republican

She voted to authorize this war.  She voted against the Levin-Reed oversight amendment and now, five years later, not learning a damn' thing about the workings of this president, she voted for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution.  Of course she is wrong.  She is not the candidate of change.  She is the candidate of the status quo.  I only hope that the Democrats wake up and realize that she is not the right choice for the nomination.  Although the Republicans sure think she is; they hope that we do too.
Obama '08

I am supporting Barack Obama because he is far more interested in fighting for America's interests rather then Israel's interests.

John A. Saah, Bethesda, Maryland (Sent Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:50 PM)


You would be shocked to find that there isn't an inch of separation between the two when it comes to our only democratically elected, nuclear, ally in the middle east, who has the finest fighting force in the world, with the exception of our own. They are one of the few nations we can count on in the world today and the ONLY one we can really count on in the increasingly anti-American ME.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have both expressed their support for Israel and would highly value that relationship and support as President.
I don't know what your agenda is, but you are wrong in your contention and attempt to perhaps cast aspersions on Senator Obama and his views.

Van

Gov.Richardson and Rep.Kucinich seem to be the only candidates facing up to the reality that (a) the war was wrong from the start and (b) the war is lost-not that the Iraqi people have won anything-but the war is a disaster for the U.S.as well as for them. It is a debacle that has wasted money and lives and brought the U.S. into disrepute. It is time for this horde of Presidential aspirants to admit this reality and join with Kucinich and Richardson to demand the troops be brought home-now!

Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President. Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. In a profile of Richardson earlier this year in the LA Times, New Mexico Democratic state Senator Mary Jane Garcia stated, "It just never stops; it's busy, busy, busy. He's got an agenda like you can't believe." New Mexico Republican Representative Dan Foley added, "People shouldn't count him out. You won't find a person who works harder." We need a person with Richardson's qualities and expertise in the White House.

I very much like Richardson.  though I support Obama I could live very easily with Richardson in the white house.
I so wish the msm would pay more attention to the great candidates that are running rather than fawn all over the awful Hillary.
why have you guys not reported on hillary's refusal to sign an anti torture pledge.

Joe Biden is the only candidate to bring together both parties to end this war in a reasonable way.  While everyone else campaigns, Joe Biden leads.

I am voting for Joe Biden.

Sierra I hope you are adult enough to support the nominee if not you should find another avocation or party.r

This guy is may be right on the Iraq war, but his stands on other issues like Health, taxes and others will hurt our country

We need Ron Paul. Vote for Ron Paul

;;;if you want more of the same, vote republican  ;;;

Yes I do!  And yes I will.

DEMOCRATS SUCK!!!

Why is Hillary's picture part of the blog entry?

The most amusing facet (for those who appreciate any and all prime examples of The Big Con in action) of the 2006-08 campaign  --  and yes, it must be considered as one single entity to make sense  --  is the nifty, Bush-like way the Dems seduced anti-war lefties and independents into giving them a boost back into power, only to begin distancing themselves from those folks almost instantly.

The current crop of "top tier" Dem presidential candidates constitute Phase Two of the Empire Enterprises, Inc. (formerly known as the USA) "Endless War in the Middle East" plan, based on the very successful, long-running, and lucrative Israeli/Palestinian Model. Phase One, of course, was the whole rush-to-war Bush extravaganza  --  for which that entire top-tier voted and which it has continued to fund  --  but, predictably, by 2006 folks were insisting in large and vocal numbers that The Gravy Train had gone on long enough; that the costs to the nation in all areas from combat casualties to over-all defensive posture to the drain on future Treasuries was ruinous; and that the whole thing basically boiled down to US citizens paying Halliburton's overhead as it made a killing off the chaos resulting from a (deliberately) ill-planned and executed invasion and occupation.

What to do, what to do?

Send in the Dems to co-opt the movement! And then put that same top-tier at the apex of the Demo heap!

The ticklish part of the scam is right now  -- when the Dems have to keep selling the idea of the war (refreshing everyone's ardor with a new round of justifications that they wouldn't accept for two seconds from the used-up Bush) while trying simultaneously to hang onto or at least neuter the anti-war crowd: Thus the pro-wrestling-style "battles" in the Congress over funding (c'mon, they're not gonna shut down the war, and never were, get it?) co-exist with ambitious and war-expanding schemes to divvy up Iraq against the will of the inhabitants  --  thus insuring enough violence directed at our troops to make conditions too perilous for any of the much ballyhooed withdrawal of all but support forces a non-starting victim of "unforeseen consequences".

Watch for a gradual but increasingly pronounced shift in tone towards those who gave the Dems their current majorities, as Clinton, et al, slowly formulate their version of the "surrender monkey" theme; it will be subtler than Bush's for awhile, but will arrive at the same basic destination  --  most likely coupled with what has become the standard Clintonesque shot on this very board: "Get used to it!": As in  --  "We're gonna let Corporate America (substitute the euphemism of your choice, of course) have it's way on this, people  --  get used to it!"

Naturally, this will all be accompanied by the stock crocodile tears over combat deaths and maimings that those in charge of Bad Wars are always obligated to issue, and the same kinds of folks who believe it when Bush does it will believe it when Hillary or Joe or John or whoever goes through his or her shtick.

Ticklish, as I say  --  but fortunately we have Diebold waiting in the wings in case it just don't fly (which is why the whole voting-machine thing hasn't been cleaned up yet); for whom this entire Presidential campaign is a sort of audition, the winner of which will have proven his or her ability to best take the heat that will be generated by taking over command of an extremely unpopular and nationally counter-productive war. At this point, Hillary and Rudy seem to be the favorites for Diebold's (and I use the word in its widest metaphorical sense) approval, and even as we speak the Smart Money seems to be eagerly greasing their palms in ecstatic expectation of the bounteous favors to come.

Dog. And. Pony. Show.

Good Cop/Bad Cop, with the added entertaining wrinkle that the two cops are about to switch roles for awhile.

Me? I never did believe the 2006 Dem cover story, so I was never personally betrayed. Those of you who bought it and voted accordingly, well ... you got some Hard Thinkin' ahead of you, no?

   

Richardson whacked his front runner?

Go Richedward Paulobamasierra!

Mr. Vickery,

You would get a raise and do well in our free enterprise economy if you learned how to spell.  No party or politician can help you if you don't bother learning how to spell basic words.  Best of luck to you.

For 3+ years, Democrats of complained about the Iraq war.  Yet, not one has presented an alternative plan.

If we get out of Iraq, do the troops all come home?  OK, then where are we going to fight Al Qaeda?  Bin Laden wanted us to go into Afghanistan and have the same problems the Soviets had in the 80s (and lost).

I think the real agenda for the Dems is to go back to the Clinton Administration's policy of NOT fighting Al Qaeda.

No Democrat has offered an alternative plan for fighting Al Qaeda and/or their affiliates.

And that's how Bin Laden would like it.  To be left alone to expand his philosophy of bigotry and slavery.

Ah, the tricky dicky nixon "wait until I'm elected to hear my plan to get us out of the war" strategy...say didn't another 38,000 Americans die between 1968 and 1973 under nixons plan? The republicans are all stuck with their christian crusades in the ME, the dems are not...yeah yeah I know a bunch of dems voted to authorize the war...they should admit they were conned by the cons and stop funding this abortion in Iraq..or at least make the chickenhawks go fight it

I wonder if Richardson would accept a cabinet position in the Clinton Whitehouse?  

Hey Mitchell in NYC... I have a problem with Hill's vote on authorization as well, but to be fair, on Meet the Press a few weeks back, she explained very clearly why she didn't support Levin's amendment.  She felt it gave the UN power over the American president.  In other words, a veto that carried more weight than the US leader.  In a word, she felt that was wrong. And I happen to agree. In the end, do we want a world organization to override the US president and Congress?  I think that's a scary precedent.   Remember, at the time, no what knew what a crazo Bush was, and no one DREAMED he would mess this up so bad.  It's easy to sit back and say "I was against it" when you weren't in the Senate at the time and were not privy to all the information or the "pressure" of the post 9/11 era.  While Clinton's support may have been wrong, I think she's explained it plenty of times.  And frankly, I don't know many conservatives that would want the UN to have Veto power over a US president. That's why Hillary appeals to the middle, to moderates, and that's why I think she'll win.  

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