First thoughts

Dee of VA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:31:08 GMT

"The remark -- which was picked up by the national press on Friday, but then virtually disappeared from the papers over the weekend --" I wonder why? Could it be the press is too fixated on making an issue out of Michelle Obama's benign remark about taking care of her house rather than reporting Clinton's outrageous remarks?

First thoughts

bb — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:38:56 GMT

Good riddance Gonzo!!!Just figure every person that Bush is going to appoint or have close to him will eventually become completely destroyed. I think Laura Bush should run like hell away from this guy! He's downright dangerous to all of us too.

First thoughts

Karen Yarbrough, Houston, Texas — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:40:11 GMT

Alberto Gonzales can't remember important people, places or things. How did he get that job with a problem like that?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:43:36 GMT

All this talk about Katrina recovery doesn't mean a hill of beans if the government doesn't get it's act together and fix the walls. All I have seen so far is money for navigation and the river, nothing for the protection of new orleans. With the city also sinking, it is kind of hard to understand why you would want to put money in a sinking hole, but that is liberals for you. those 200 delegates really did in 2000 for the democratic party, this must be Howard dean's punishment for Florida for screwing up the elections.

First thoughts

HOT DAM — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:45:22 GMT

Gonsouless is still souless but at least GOZO!

First thoughts

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:47:16 GMT

I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure Hillary Clinton's comment is simply going to go by the wayside. That comment will come up in a future debate and will haunt her.

First thoughts

Dee Anna Roberts , Green Bay Wisconsin — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:48:58 GMT

Na Na Na Na

Na Na Na Na

Gonzales

Good Bye

Come on everyone sing it with me !

First thoughts

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:54:45 GMT

Fine that Gonzo is leaving, but must not be the end of it. All the things that were previously done wrong are still wrong and all the other participants in his bad decisions and deceptions are still in place. Also don't think the Administration won't try to put in place someone even worse. That's what they did when Ashcroft left.

First thoughts

Abraham, SF, CA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:56:47 GMT

Asta la vista Gonzo and no to the failure of Katrina, Chertoff

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:59:11 GMT

It was YOU, "'Fredo", it was you all along. Good riddance to another Bush henchman. Rove, 'Fredo, Bartlett, et al, are all jumping off that sinking ship, though 'Fredo was pushed, but the only way we'll see Cheney go out is, "feet first". It's a great day for democracy and the rule of law.

Van

First thoughts

Dave, Tn — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:03:39 GMT

Looking for a democrat to replace Gonzo? How about Jamie Gorelick. Then we can have a nice little show trial huh I mean hearing on the gorelick wall.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:05:26 GMT

To, the, "Polls don't matter because everyone I talk to agrees with me...", crowd here.

Op-ed: Clarence Page on 'birds of a . . .feather'

BY CLARENCE PAGE | Clarence Page is a syndicated Chicago Tribune columnist based in Washington. James K

There they go again. I'm listening to a political call-in program on the radio, and a caller says he doesn't believe the major opinion polls. "And everyone I've talked to feels like I do."

Wow. Somebody break the news to Gallup, Harris, Roper, Zogby and all those other pollsters. They're all washed up. Politicians and major corporations don't need to keep spending gazillions of dollars on polls and focus groups. All they have to do is talk to this guy's pals.

One of my pet peeves is when people don't stop to realize the whole world might not be thinking about or experiencing things the same way they and their friends do. In politics, economics and other current affairs, people often are influenced less by facts than by their friends. Increasingly, sociologists are finding that, whether we intend to or not, birds of a political feather flock together.

Almost 20 years ago, sociologist David Knoke at the University of Minnesota found that you can predict someone's politics with great certainty if his or her closest two or three friends all leaned in one political direction. As another presidential election heats up, it's wise to understand the subtle but important role that the attraction of like-minded individuals plays in our political attitudes.

To political strategists, we're not really "red state" or "blue state" America, according to Douglas B. Sosknik, Matthew J. Dowd and Ron Fournier, the bipartisan authors of "Applebee's America: How Successful Political, Business and Religious Leaders Connect With the New American Community."

Instead, they argue, we're a bunch of "red tribes, blue tribes and tipping tribes," shaped by our lifestyle choices and persuadable by anyone who makes a "gut values connection" with us.

But do our views shape our friendships, or do our friends shape our views? "It's not an either /or question," Duke University sociologist Lynn Smith-Lovin said in a telephone interview. "Most of what we learn is shaped by our associations, and ... our associations are shaped more by the structures in which we live - our neighborhoods, workplaces, churches, the clubs we join and so forth."

Normally, she said, "You don't set out saying you are going to hang out with these people because they are all supporters of one candidate or another. You go because a certain place is full of people who are like you in a lot of other ways. Political beliefs become just another part of the soup of information that you share with one another."

Critical ingredients in that soup, says sociologist Mario Luis Small of the University of Chicago, are our demographics and shared experiences. People with similar incomes, backgrounds, work categories and family situations gravitate to the same places, activities and, ultimately, friendships.

"The implication for our political attitudes," Small said, "is that these activities end up reinforcing the attitudes I already have."

These days, Smith-Lovin noted, we are more likely than ever to have our group-shared partisanship hardened by a growing array of Internet sites and other media dedicated to very specific tastes and viewpoints.

Increasingly, if you so desire, you and your friends can cruise through an entire day of media reports without ever sharing the viewpoints or experiences of someone unlike yourselves.

Many people find that narrow sampling of the world to be comforting, no doubt. Complexity makes some people nervous.

But the world is complex, and sometimes discomfort is good. We learn things not only by reinforcing our cherished beliefs but also by seeing how well those beliefs stand up next to somebody else's views.

In other words, it's not easy for birds of a feather to leave their flock, but sometimes it's worth the flight.

More articles

Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.

Van

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:07:20 GMT

A new addition today;

http://www.pollster.com/

I provide you, the voter/reader, with the tools to enable you to have fun exposing them yourselves.

Whenever they post their, "opinions", ask, "Where did you get that information? could you please post the link?" Then you can go to the actual sources of their information. Almost all of the most current factual information on the candidates, the polls and the candidates' finances and contributors can be found below. I will be posting this list EVERY morning and updating the sources as they become available. The best way to combat lies is with TRUTH. Here is your ammo pack!

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml The Federal Elections Commission is where the candidates file the financial information for their campaigns.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ Opensecrets.org is "Your guide to money in U.S elections."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Is THE source for political junkies, with links to every major political site on the right, left and center.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ is the one of the most accurate polling companies in the business, with daily tracking polls.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=asc#vr Has the voting records for all members of congress, and their Liberal/Conservative ratings.

http://votesmart.org/index.htm Here's what they say at the site;
Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote? Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate, unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories: biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings. What would you like to know?

Van

First thoughts

Will Gibbs New York — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:07:24 GMT

HRC's use of terrorism as a political tool may have not made the front pages but I do not think it has gone away. She is creating quite a list of revelations that put together are going to come back again and again. They include...

We are safer since 9/11.
Lobbyists represent real Americans.
HRC did not read the NIE before voting for authorization.
HRC does not believe in talking to hostile leaders without preconditions.

As the Bush Administration has demonstrated, regardless of how tight and secretive your machine may be... the truth will get out.

First thoughts

Capt'n Nemo — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:10:09 GMT

New Orleans = Atlantis

Make it into a dive site.

First thoughts

Independent, Texas — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:11:20 GMT

Dee Anna Roberts , Green Bay Wisconsin (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 9:48 AM)

Perfect! I knew the tune immediately. Good goin'! (both you and G!)

First thoughts

Toris, NH — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:11:33 GMT

HRC with another fear tactics. Finally, the MSM are now making sense of Obama's judgement on foreign policies.

The more people get to know the candidates' policies the more they will realize that HRC is a gun powder that is waiting to explode. She is more of the same, calculating and cold hearted.

As for me and my house, we're voting for something different come January 2008. No more establishment.

First thoughts

JIrby, Colorado — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:12:51 GMT

We're getting a big smoke and mirrors routine from the Republicans and the corporations that own them. They're going to "allow" Hillary to win the election. That way the people get a Republican in Democrat's clothing. And everybody's happy. We think we have a Democrat, they know they have a Republican.

First thoughts

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:13:12 GMT

Another traitor bites the dust, good riddance benedict gonzo arnold.

First thoughts

CD, NC — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:15:32 GMT

Correction Hillary didn't just criticize him, she said he should resign or be replaced.

Ok, not only are we doing "What IFs", she is now trying to tell a sovoureign government what they should do. The US telling another government (Muslim)how they should run their country/who can lead it, would go over very well in that part of the world. Is she suggesting the the US pick their leaders?

What happen to candidates running for President being careful about what they say because of the impact it would have around the world?

I am not convinced this is a PLUS as you say ,all it does is show once again "the Two Faces of Hillary"

I agree this will come up in debates. Along with her other "Face Changes".

First thoughts

HOT DAM — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:16:02 GMT

OH Dee and Lewis we are so afraid..so full of fear if only the shrub will save us from bin laden!!!!
I think all should ask why the idiot and the military might of the strongest most powerful nation in the WORLD, is making us afraid of ONE MAN with no ARMY.
I predict at least five terror "alerts" (high but as usual false) 2 "reports" of active cells( in the rose garden) before the election.
The JOKER IN CHIEF is playing the he he he game on the "huddled masses." He is snikering at the gullible fools.

First thoughts

Blue state baby — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:17:27 GMT

It seems like as all of these repubs resign there is an order to it. The more stupid they are, the longer they hang on before resigning. Gonzo finally got it. This leaves the two most stupid ones. Bush and Cheney.
The only chance the repubs have next year is to scare enouph dems into not voting for Hillary. They know she is the one that will beat them.

First thoughts

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:18:26 GMT

Jerry, for once I agree with you. There's no point in rebuilding the levees for less than a Cat 5 hurricane. That would be far cheaper than rebuilding the city after it gets destroyed. So why does the Bush Administration insist we can't afford to do better than rebuild to the existing Cat 3 level? And why did Republican Mississippi get far more money for rebuilding on far more lenient terms than Democratic Louisiana, which suffered more damage?

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:23:11 GMT

I'm sorry but I'd rather have Obama, Edwards run than HRC. She's basically saying anything now, and this latest comment is basically saying nominate me b/c I'm a good political fighter. It's no different than what the GOP said. I don't care about national polls, I hope the grass roots campaign on the Dem side will elect someone else.

First thoughts

Nick, Ohio — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:24:00 GMT

With the news of Alberto Gonzales' resignation as AG, it appears as if another of the walls of the Bush Castle has come down. The inner sanctum is slowly being eroded away. It seems that whenever Bush gives someone the "great job, Brownie" accolade, they are then doomed to ignominy. I wonder who will be next?

Who's next??? Cheney?

First thoughts

Dee Anna Roberts , Green Bay Wisconsin — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:25:19 GMT

Independent, Texas

I'm celebrating this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RqMQFQ028M

First thoughts

H P Boston — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:35:22 GMT

Great picture of THE GRUESOME TWOSOME!
They are BOTH looking over their shoulders.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:36:40 GMT

CD, you said: "The US telling another government (Muslim)how they should run their country/who can lead it, would go over very well in that part of the world."

I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. routinely tells other countries how they should run things. We are downright bossy with the rest of the world. But aside from that, you are basing your criticism on a false premise. Iraq is not a sovereign nation right now. It's an OCCUPIED nation - occupied by us and the "coalition of the willing." Granted, we have occupied it to "help" them, but we are still responsible for...hm, pretty much everything, it seems. We have pumped billions of dollars into Iraq to give them democracy. If we want to criticize the way that democracy is being handled, then by all means...get to it.

First thoughts

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:50:04 GMT

First thoughts

M. Boley — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:51:38 GMT

Well well well... another coward makes his exit. Good f'in riddance.

First thoughts

Doris — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:53:13 GMT

Welcome back Van...missed you on Friday. Then again Hillary was having a "REALLY BAD DAY" wasn't she. Not even you could defend her actions/words. I was so looking for your comment/justifications for:

"What If" a terriost attack, Is that playing the fear card?

"Surge (tatics)is working in some places" in front of VFW, then later surge isn't working

Well welcome back, hope that y

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:56:23 GMT

Courtesy of CD, NC (last week):
'Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton for President

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the
Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack
Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois
senator has a better global grasp than his chief
rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''
``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper
hand,'' Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's
national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of
what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.'' Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.
Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very
conventional,'' Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the
country needs to go back to what we had eight years
ago.''

Hillary as first lady was nothing more than a 'glorified housewife' !!!
She was more akin to Edith Bunker than some foreign policy wizard.
Edith Bunker with a philandering Archie ;-)
What foreign policy 'experience' did she gain as 'first lady' ?
That's why nobody asks Barbara Bush or Rosalind Carter to sit on Foreign Policy advisory panels.

`Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president'

Any more than being a cheerleader prepares you to be a quarterback !!

When will the info-tainment industry discover this truth ?

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:57:33 GMT

CJ / don't worry hillary won't get the nomination, despite the constant blathering by a few on this blog that only want clinton nominated because of her gender, when objective people look at clinton they see her for what she is, a corporate owned deceptive republican clone, the radical sexist bigot's are few and that's the only dems backing clinton, people are tired of business as usual

First thoughts

John Henry, Houston, TX — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:04:35 GMT

Hillary is right again.

She is the best candidate to keep us safe and to defend against the republican attack machine in case of terrorist attack (God forbid). I am sure that statement will help her with the American people, those in the media who hate Hillary and keep looking and hoping for something and anything to bring her down will fail again.

This attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill will backfire as usual. The mainstream media ignore this attempt by Hillary haters to score a cheap point, they know that there is no story here. Thank you.

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:07:10 GMT

Gonzo's resignation is irrelevent. He was just the puppet and there is no reason to believe the policies will change. He needs to be prosecuted and put in jail because that is the only thing that will give the next Attorney General pause before trashing our laws. At least the Republicans are always telling us that harsh jail sentences are the only way to combat crime.

First thoughts

Bill Debois Ottawa,KS — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:07:32 GMT

Since Gonzo has so much trouble remembering, would
he benefit from stem cells?

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:07:40 GMT

Z -- what say you?

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:22:32 GMT

I'm not saying that it isn't,"Politics as usual", to contradict your rhetoric with your actions...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?hpid=topnews

An, "Old Guy", with a lot of, "Washington Experience", who's, "...been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls..."

"Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."

Pete Rouse is the Outsider's Insider, a fixer steeped in the ways of a Washington that Obama has been both eager to learn and quick to publicly condemn. The meticulous workaholic rose through three decades of unglamorous legislating to become arguably the most influential Democratic aide in the Senate when he worked for then-Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.).

"His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust," Obama said. And yet this is the Washington of "cheap political points" and "petty" partisanship that figures prominently in Obama's public speeches these days. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," Obama tells his audiences. "But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

How many know who is on the Obama campaign staff, and how they compare to the, "insiders", on other candidate's teams? For all the ,"Kum Bah Yah", talk of new directions and bringing people together, the campaign staffs of all the major candidates are drawn from the same pool of political pros who've been doing this for the past 20 years or more. Whoever the, "Face", is, the same puppeteers are behind the curtains.

Van

First thoughts

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:25:40 GMT

I've said it before, and I guess I'll have to say it again: Why is it a Federal responsibility to rebuild New Orleans? Did the Federal Government put the city in a swamp that's below sea level to begin with?

A lot of Federal money (I don't know how much, but I know it was a lot [no, not as much as was spent in Iraq, but that's not relevant to anything])has already been spent rebuilding the Gulf Coast after the hurricanes hit. A lot of what was spent went into rebuilding the levees and dredging the river (two argualbe Federal responsibilities), but an awful lot more was just "lost."

I don't feel that the Federal Government has any further responsibility to New orleans or to the rest of the Gulf as a result of 2005's storm damage. It isn't a Federal responsibility to rebuild cities, towns, houses, etc.--that duty belongs to the States and their political subdivisions and to the people themselves. And under no circumstances does it make sense to put Federal dollars into rebuilding a city that is below sea level in a swamp. Doing so only invites further disasters.

And, yes, I'd take the same position if my home area was hit with a similar disaster. The Constitution doesn't apportion responsibility based on where something happens.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:36:22 GMT

Keep it going Van, you are right on everything. Love your posts. Hillary will win and turn this country around for the best.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:46:18 GMT

"...when objective people look at clinton they see her for what she is, a corporate owned deceptive republican clone, the radical sexist bigot's are few and that's the only dems backing clinton..."

Objectivity...some people should look up words before they make themselves look silly...

Van

First thoughts

Gene, Carlsbad, CA — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:48:26 GMT

Hillary's comment about an attack was right on. She's a pragmatist and people should get used to it.

The best thing in the world that could happen to the "fear-mongering" right wing would be an attack. They'd immediately spin it as a sign that terrorists aren't afraid of Democrats.

Hide and watch.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:10:27 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY / I agree hillary and obama are both to entrenched in all that smells in washington, and both are corporate owned entities with no need for the average american citizen, that’s why I will be voting for edwards, the only candidate that has plans that will help all americans not just the wealthy elite, but van it's pretty lame when you have to start stating that other candidates are equally as bad as hillary, but I guess when that’s all you've got that’s all you've got

First thoughts

CD,NC — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:13:31 GMT

I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. routinely tells other countries how they should run things. We are downright bossy with the rest of the world. But aside from that, you are basing your criticism on a false premise. Iraq is not a sovereign nation right now. It's an OCCUPIED nation - occupied by us and the "coalition of the willing." Granted, we have occupied it to "help" them, but we are still responsible for...hm, pretty much everything, it seems. We have pumped billions of dollars into Iraq to give them democracy. If we want to criticize the way that democracy is being handled, then by all means...get to it.

Well Carrie...you need to tell all of the other Politicians and the world, who have been saying since Iraq's elections (so call) that they are a sovereign country. So are you saying they are the 51st state or are they like Puerto Rico? Or is this just another attempt to spin an Hillary gaffe?

First thoughts

Doris, — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:21:57 GMT

VAn...you forget the obivious..but as a Clinton supporter that is understandable. The candidate or the President sets the tone. You can chose capable people but you tell them how to act not the other way around and you make sure that they do just that. Are you referring to Mark Penn ( works for Hillary) who works for Lobby Busters but HRC touts her union support?

So I don't believe Senator Obama is managed by puppeteers behind the scene. HRC, may be, but again it is politics as usual with her campaign. She has shown she will say whatever is necesssary depending on who she is in front of (ie VFW).

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:27:05 GMT

MK - Who is it that only want Hillary nominated for her gender? Will you at last answer me? I think not, because it seems to me that it is you who is obsessed with her gender, not anyone else. Yes, there are people who think it would be great to have a woman elected president. I know I do. That doesn't mean that any of those people think that someone should be president solely because of gender.

Just out of curiosity, do you say those who support Obama do so only because they want a black man to be president? I don't think I have seen you say that.

First thoughts

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:34:18 GMT

nuanced ***** The champage is flowing over here,we been parting for hours! Come on over and join in the fun.We got a pin up of Alberto, who is Gonzo on the wall.And we have been re-playing the vidio on Georgie and Gonzo, isn't it a hoot. Yes, I'll take another glass of Don Perion. Gonzo-Gate is not going to go away, we will be talking about this "many" years from now, because prosecutions will take time. There is still is much, much more to follow. I got all the time in the world,cause it isn't going to fade away.

First thoughts

Robert J. Norris, Athens, Ga. — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:44:42 GMT

LOOK WHAT THE "REPUBLICANS" ARE DOING IN FLORIDA, MOVING "UP" THE PRIMARY DATE. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAY THROW OUT ALL DELAGATES, SINCE THIS DATE WAS CHANGED. AND LOOK IN CALIFORNIA, TRYING TO CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT'S A FULL ATTACK ON THE ELECTION SYSTEM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

First thoughts

PYRRHIC — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:45:35 GMT

So Van what your saying is Senator Obama has Hired Washington INSIDERS, the Same old dirty tricks kinda politicos, the who's who in what to do?
My my I am so dsappointed, I had hoped he was for change and a new direction. I guess he is just trying his best to be president and will do what ever to get there, then he will change it, right?
I do so want to trust him.

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:07:57 GMT

Na Na Na Na

Na Na Na Na

Gonzales

Good Bye

Z -- thanks for the Champagne, I'm ready for a refill. Great party!

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:08:17 GMT

The polls have not moved. Senator Clinton's dominance continues.

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

It's all Hillary, and by HUGE margins in several states. Look at California, Florida, New Jersey, Nevada, all overwhelming double-digit leads. She is up by almost 10 points in NH, and SC too.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Hillary Clinton continues to lead with 40% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Barack Obama earns support from 21% while John Edwards attracts 17% (see recent daily numbers). New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tops the Democrats’ second tier at 5% while Dennis Kucinich is at 3%.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 77% of Democrats, including 43% with a Very Favorable opinion. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable view. Obama’s numbers among Democrats are also very strong—74% favorable and 24% unfavorable. These figures include 34% with a Very Favorable opinion of the Illinois Senator. Edwards is viewed favorably by 67% of Democrats and unfavorably by 28%."

The Hillary bashers screech their repetitive screeds to NO avail. When the nominating process is done, we will be able to clearly see who these people really are representing. Any democrat who says they won't vote for the democratic candidate for president, and right now that IS Senator Clinton, is really saying that they don't care if the republicans win. What does that say about them?

If Senator Obama can't gain any traction in the polls between now and say, Halloween, and if Senator Clinton continues to slowly gain support, as she has been doing for the past months, we'll get to see who the real democrats are, and who the republican dirty tricksters are, long before the first votes are cast in January.

Van

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:09:50 GMT

Interesting thoughts...

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/36536/
Barack in a Box

His advisers are at pains not to let Obama peak too soon. But if he doesn’t let loose, he loses.
By John Heilemann

The season now ending may not have been the summer of Barack Obama’s discontent, but no one—least of all the candidate himself—is likely to remember it as his summer of love, either. At the end of June, Obama was bathed in a chorus of hosannas over his fund-raising prowess, his grassroots appeal, his message of reform. Two months later, he is engulfed in a blaring cacophony of criticism over…well, pretty much everything. His alleged foreign-policy gaffes. His supposedly conciliatory comments about the role of lobbyists. And, of course, his purported insufficiency of experience to hold the highest office in the land. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked at the recent Democratic debate in Iowa whether Obama is “ready” only one of his fellow White House wannabes rose to defend him: Mike Gravel. (Gee, thanks.)

As Hillary Clinton would tell you, being pounded like a piñata can be a signifier of stature. But it can also be an indication that the sharks smell blood in the water—and this is the case with Obama. After a white-hot start seven months ago, the campaign of the junior Illinois senator seems palpably to have stalled. Indeed, in Democratic circles, the meme is spreading that he may turn out to be the Bill Bradley of 2008: a cerebral, somewhat standoffish candidate with an appeal to upscale, liberal voters (and the capacity to get them to open their checkbooks) whose star burned brightly for a while but then dimmed. Thus are Obama’s rivals, in anticipation of his fall, jostling to position themselves as the next-most-plausible alternative to Clinton.

This meme may prove one day to have been prescient. But, at the moment, it strikes me as premature. From the start of his bid, Obama has styled himself an agent of change, and all the available evidence suggests that voters still consider him the most credible aspirant to that role. The questions facing him have always been the same: Can he fashion a coherent vision of what the change he’s promising would look like? And can he convince voters that transformative capacity trumps experience? While it’s fair to say that Obama has failed to answer either in the affirmative, it’s also true that he’s barely begun to try—and that the opportunity to do so remains in front of him.

The doubts about Obama’s viability in the Democratic race revolve primarily around two phenomena. The first is the gap between him and Clinton in the national polls, which has widened from as little as eight percentage points to closer to twenty. The second is the sense that, at age 46 and in just his third year in the Senate, he may be too untested to be commander-in-chief. Obama is acutely aware of this vulnerability. “People have to feel comfortable that, ‘You know what? This guy can handle the job,’” he told the Associated Press. “It’s a stretch for them because I haven’t been on the national scene for long and haven’t gone through the conventional paths that we traditionally draw for our presidents.”

On the face of it, Obama has elongated that stretch with some of his recent statements (or stumbles, depending on your point of view) on foreign policy: about his willingness to meet with the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; his plans to order military strikes on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, refused to do anything to curtail the resurgence of the Taliban there; and his ruling out of the use of nuclear weapons in such attacks."

Van

First thoughts

Doris — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:18:40 GMT

Pyrrhic..consider the source. He is supporting HRC and will spin against anyone else.

The people are less important ...the Leader is more important or Leadership. You didn't hear Van talk about the insiders and former Lobbyist working for HRC.

Keep the faith

First thoughts

John Henry, Houston, TX — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:18:42 GMT

For MK's logic to be right, one has to assume that those who support Obama do so because he is black and those who support other white male candidates are doing so because they are white. I guess in MK's world, every one is racist.

When are you guys going to carry Hillary news with positive spin as you do for other candidates you are personally supporting?

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:19:03 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa / carrie it's easy to pick out the people that are voting on the gender only basis, I don't care if the nominee is black, green, male, female, whatever, I do care about what the candidate intends to if elected and whether they can be elected at all, sorry but there is no-way hillary can win the general election, and it has nothing to do with gender, look at who she works for, she is deceptive as hell, she flip-flops constantly, her healthcare plan is tailor made to keep the drug and insurance companies rich and does nothing to help get everyone insured, I mean if your not a republican the only reason you could be voting for her is because she's the only women candidate, that ain't enough for me, but it is for some, who's the real sexist bigot?

First thoughts

Samkan Gato — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:32:47 GMT

nuanced ***** The champage is flowing over here,we been parting for hours! Come on over and join in the fun.

Yes - real good time is being had. Also, Hillary is coming over later, and we're going to play Pin the Broom on the Witch.

First thoughts

J. Smith, Portland, OR — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:39:56 GMT

HRC's political faux paus was probably because she didn't filter her thoughts before speaking. She can't hide her weaknesses forever nor can her natural tendencies always be denied, and her handlers know this.

My family and I would like to vote for a woman but HRC's consistently disingenuous, too calculating, too pugnacious, has too much negative baggage, and lacks consistently good judgement. With so much on the line for '08 there's no way my family or I will vote for her.

First thoughts

PYRRHIC — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:56:19 GMT

Doris you are such a fool. My post was DRIPPING sarcasm, read it again. It is your spin I just threw back in your face! The people are important, Rove the gargole of evil comes to mind!

Senator Clinton our next LEADER.

First thoughts

Zorro....the Z man, havin fun on Monday afternoon — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:10:33 GMT

Yes another glass of champagne. I'll pay for this in the morning.But it's well worth it ! Party on !!!! It's the end of the Republican party.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:13:48 GMT

CD - No need to spin, as in my opinion it is not a gaffe at all. How many people think the Iraq government is doing a good job? Let me pause to listen to that deafening silence.

Iraq is obviously not a territory of the United States...let's not get ridiculous. But neither are they a true sovereign nation so long as we are there cleaning up the mess.

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:13:52 GMT

Some of us on this blog aren't against HRC b/c we dislike her. I for one as many times I've said, live the Clintons and she seems to be a more than capable Senator. But by her nature and period of politics she gained her experience from..she is a political animal. The GOP attacked her and Bill viciously but yet she is prepared to do the same and that doesn't help this country. I can only imagine the women the GOP have lying in wait to sue her over being harrassed during the Clinton scandals. You can't put the past under a rug..we as Democrats have to let the Clintons go and move on. I know Edwards may not be as bright as Obama..but atleast he offers that and can provide a unified Democratic front. The same goes for Obama..and not only that he can win over voters with his attitude and common sense. Even if Obama doesn't win b/c of his race, I believe he can fundamentally change the politics of the left to that of hope and bring the nation to that side...as it should be.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:19:06 GMT

MK - Who does Hillary work for? She collects her paycheck from the federal government, just like the other Senators who are running.

And keep in mind that just because YOU find Hillary objectionable does not mean that others do as well. You impart your opinions and your erroneous conclusions on everyone else. You don't like Hillary. You think she is beholden to special interests. You think she is a liar. You think she is <insert negative characteristic here>. These are all things that you THINK. This is not empirical fact, ergo it is reasonable to assume that there are people in this world that do, in fact, like Hillary Clinton as a candidate because of more than her "mommy parts."

In fact, the only one I see focused on her mommy parts is you.

First thoughts

dras alliance ohio — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:41:08 GMT

Fred Thompson visits the Minnesota State Fair. I know he's a fat ass so he looks like a shoe-in in the porker contest. Maybe he'll have his babe with him. A nice two piece on her bod would be an easy winner with those Minnesota huckleberry's.

First thoughts

nuanced — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:54:03 GMT

Samkan Gato, you are a party pooper.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:56:27 GMT

people might think it is the end of the Republican party....

but with Hillary leading the Democratic party into the general election, the game just got more interesting.....

Hillary the duck hunter or Rudy the dress wearer.

First thoughts

Adlea Bradley — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:01:36 GMT

Blue State Baby /The more stupid they are, the longer they hang on

Very true. The same is true for this board. How long you've been around here Blue?

First thoughts

Doris — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:13:14 GMT

Pyrrhic...I got it, then and now...but you were not my audience. Who's the fool? You're supporting Hillary. You Carrie and Van don't get it.

Even at 40-50% of support if she has that, she can't make it if the rest of the democrats and Independants are against her. I never hear an Obama supporter say if Edwards gets the nomination or anyone else that they wouldn't support them. Its almost universal with Obama supporters and most people who support anyone else. Just look at this site as an example. She is a polarizing person even in her own party.

No wonder the GOP wants her to win the nomination they know that it will energize their party and Democrats aren't really 100% behind her.

As for not voting for her means a Republican wins...what's the difference? You never know where she stands anyway. It depends who who she is talking to.

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:29:41 GMT

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the
Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack
Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois
senator has a better global grasp than his chief
rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''
``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper
hand,'' Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's
national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of
what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.'' Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.
Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very
conventional,'' Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the
country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago"

Van...I will take his opinion over yours....or people that you quote any day.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:50:35 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa / get over it carrie, this is a blog, I will let you in on a little secret though, more people in this nation do not think hillary should be president, than do, she represents everything wrong in washington, not change

First thoughts

CJ — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:53:35 GMT

Another thing to think...if the GOP want HRC to run you know it can't be a good idea. They are looking for someone to smear and she fits the bill. Even if she wins the smear and the division will not stop. Don't give the neoconservatives what they want.

First thoughts

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:57:46 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa: Obviously not everyone supporting Hillary is doing so because she is a women, however a large percent of people who support her are doing it for that reason. There are others who just want Bill back in the WH, and see Hillary as a means to that end. I have been asked countless times why I'm not supporting Hillary. I used to answer, she'll lose in the general (name one state Gore lost she'll win- possibly Ark., but she'll lose Iowa in a general), and my other reasons. Now I answer with a question. I ask why should I support Hillary over Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama or Richardson, and few have been able to give a reason why, she is superior to most of the other candidates, let alone to all. The responses are usually lame (she's the front runner, etc.)In the conversation it usually becomes clear that they want to know why I'm not supporting the women candidate, especially given I'm a women. I have been asked straight out "don't you want a women President?", etc. I think voting for a candidate because they are a women is as foolish as voting against a candidate because she is a women. I've had clients want me to represent them because they want a women, I could understand that if I were a ob-gyn, but I think choosing an attorney based on their gender, as opposed top area of specialty is stupid. If two candidates truly were equal in every measurable aspect, including electability, then using gender as the tie breaker would make sense. But to support a candidate because of her gender is foolish. I will wait until the best candidate is a women, or a women candidate is at minimum equal to the men in the race, before I use gender in my decision.

While it is a regular occurrence to be asked why as a women I'm not supporting Hillary, no one has asked me, or accused me of not supporting Obama, because of his race. I have been asked whether I think the country is ready for a black President, but those conversations are independent of conversations regarding who I support. I do think that the country is ready for a black President. I think Colin Powell, had he not been tainted with the Iraq war could be elected. My concerns regarding Obama have nothing to do with his race, but rather my concern is he does not yet have the experience to be President, and never has experience been more crucial than it is now. I saw Obama in Waterloo/Cedar Falls on C-span. He was asked a question about whether he would commit to eliminating a boon doggle military project ( a specific weapons systems the DOD doesn't want, doesn't think has utility, but keeps getting funded) His response was very weak. He agreed that there was fat in the military budget, etc, he ended saying that he was not aware of the military system that the questioner specifically asked about, so he couldn't answer the question. While I appreciate his honesty in admitting he didn't know about the specific weapon system, however he really should have known about the system. Not only because he has presumably already voted once or twice regarding its funding, but it wasn't an obscure system. The name escapes me, but I've seen it discussed on TV several times over the years. There have been other times that Sen. Obama had no clue as to the facts behind the question (whether it be on ERISA or other federal law), these are things a candidate should know about. And while I think he is extremely intelligent I don't think he has enough experience at this point.

One thing that I really find irritating is how so many Hillary supporters leave events after she has completed her talk, but before the program is concluded. This happened at the Hall of Fame dinner in May (although that was almost exclusively her large contingent of paid staff), the Hawkeye Labor Council Forum on 8/18, and again today at the Livestrong Forum. It will be interesting to see how Hillary's reception at forum is reported. If MSM claims she was the favorite I will now become a conspiracy theorist and conclude that the MSM is making things up to bolster her "front runner status" All four candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich) were well received. Even though a lot of people left after Hillary (she was first up)Edwards received a far more enthusiastic response than Hillary. There is no way that Chris Matthews couldn't have picked up on it. I'm not supporting Edwards, but he was clearly the favorite among those at the civic center. Even Kucinich had louder cheers and more spontaneous applause than Hillary, despite their being about 20% fewer people there when Kucinich spoke. (After Edwards spoke more people left, and after Richardson left even more people left)

First thoughts

Josh — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:04:14 GMT

Since most comments that shed light on ill-constructed arguments usually go unanswered, or are answered with an "Oh yeah, well your candidate smells funny" remark, I am simply going to state my line of reasoning when I consider which candidate will receive my support.

I truly believe that Clinton and Obama have closely aligned views on many issues. They have basic disagreements on very few things - the differences are generally minor and usually media-spun. The differences they do have tend to make me lean toward Obama, but that is not the clinching factor.

For me - and I think for most people - the clinching difference between the two is this:

Clinton uses her "I've battled the right wing machine" argument to try to convince voters that she can win. I don't like the fact that she will HAVE to fight the right wing machine. That is the problem we have right now. Her reputation precedes her, and for me, that is a problem. I don't care that she can beat the Republicans in an election, I want her to get things done IN OFFICE. I think a lot of Republicans will block her agenda simply because of who she is, regardless of how good her policy is.

On the other hand, Obama is not weighed down by that baggage. Some say he is "inexperienced". For me, he has plenty of relevant experience, and more importantly, he has the judgement to be a good president. Also, whether you call it naive or not, I think he really does believe he can inspire change in this country. And that inspiration is something that I don't get from Clinton.

I guarantee that many of the bloggers here that profess support for their candidate cannot tell me where they stand on 3 important issues without looking it up on their website.

No candidate-bashing can change that, and it is obvious that candidate-bashing is not having much of an effect on many of the bloggers on this site. So it would seem more efficient if we could actually discuss the candidates rather than participate in this meaningless exercise in baseless argumentation. But then again, perhaps I also am a little "naive".

First thoughts

Josh — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:05:46 GMT

If anyone is interested in joining me on my quest to better the discourse with which we discuss our future, please let me know, and maybe we can set up a blog where we can begin to make progress.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:46:31 GMT

"As for not voting for her means a Republican wins...what's the difference?"
Doris (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 3:13 PM)

If you don't know the difference...

Van

First thoughts

Independent, Texas — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:59:43 GMT

Josh (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 4:05 PM)

Civil discourse comes and goes. Some days it is better than others. I've long wanted to have a blog such as you describe. There is one, actually named "Civil Discourse" but it, apparently, was abandoned. I would like to buy it but can't find the owner. Good tooling.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:08:45 GMT

You sound sincere in your desires, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

Do you believe that the republicans won't slime Senator Obama, or any of the other candidates, with their, "attack machine", in the general election? Do you believe that the only candidate that is vulnerable to attack is the one who is the likely nominee?

Do you really believe that Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel supporters DON'T know why they are supporting their candidates? It would be insulting to them if you did.

It's tough to engage in discourse, those whose knowledge you openly hold in low esteem, and whose very opinions you, "guarantee", are uninformed.

The place you seek is the Obama '08 website. You won't find anyone who disagrees with your beliefs and they will welcome you with open arms. You don't seek discourse, you seek validation of your beliefs, and this is probably not the place for that.

Van

First thoughts

PYRRHIC — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:24:44 GMT

You are the fool Doris, you adressed me.
I KNOW where Senator Clinton stands on EVERY thing and I agree with her. I have always had great admiration and respect for Hillary. She is the best canidate and I do not care if you vote for her or support her. You are irrelevant.

This site is LOADED with trolls and republicans pretentending to be "independents", but are in fact working to be divisive. I am aware and I do my homework.
WE DEMS are with all our candidates, if Hillary should by some freak reason not be the nominee, I will vote for the Democrat elected. Got that, any Democrat is a qualified canidate.

Hillary has 77% of Democratic voters, we are legion!

So go spread your republican retoric somewhere else.

Carrie, Van and I need no advice from you.
Go haunt another blog.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:23:33 GMT

PYRRHIC / "Van and I need no advice from you." just remember champ nobody needs any advice from you or van either, you cats come on here with your bloated egos actually thinking people should pay attention because you attempt to form a sentence without any mistakes, but it's the always twisted logic and meaningless poll numbers that show how pathetic you are for taking money to make entries on a blog, everyone knows poll numbers go to the highest bidder, I talk about facts, real facts not the cannon fodder you and van post constantly, here’s a fact for you and the vanster, the descriptions I give of hillary are quite factual, they are ugly but true, notice how many people on this and any other open blog cannot support hillary but can support any other dem? all your fancy words and store bought poll numbers ain't going to change that fact, I want a positive change in this country, and I want it to be for any american citizen not just for you holier than thou people but for all, edwards can make those changes, hillary won't

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:33:07 GMT

Van - Clinton's staffers criticized Obama for his willingness to meet with the heads of Syria and Iran, too. One of them even made the point that Obama would be willing to meet with Holocaust deniers.

But in Clinton's Iraq withdrawal plan (which really isn't a plan, but that's another topic) she talks about meeting with all of Iraq's neighbors.

And on the nuclear thing, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong. Obama understands U.S. policy and Clinton is ignorant of it.

First thoughts

Tim — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:52:59 GMT

Pyrrhic...a chorus of three...that says it all. The 77% you quote is not support ..you dummy.

Again for you guys anyone not supporting Hillary is a republican. Notice no one else regardless of who they support accusses anyone else of being a republican.

One of the so many reasons...people won't vote for her and it grows everyday people like you speak up for her.

Good...thats the difference you will vote for who ever is chosen. They opther guys aren't as polarizing. Face it there is a large group of democrats who just "WON'T" vote for her ANYBODY but her.

Dummy leading dummies LOL

First thoughts

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:18:14 GMT

Pyrrhic,

You know where Hillary Clinton stands on every issue? I find that amazing. I first met Hillary Clinton the evening before the 96 election when Pres. Clinton, Chelsea and Hillary were in Cedar Rapids for a rally for Sen. Harkin. (their last stop before going to Arkansas to vote), Sen. Harkin was in a close race according to the polls, but won easily. She (as well as Chelsea, and Pres. Clinton) held my then 2 1/2 year old daughter for a photo. She was very nice. I went to a fund raiser at her DC home in 2002 for an Iowa congressional candidate. (Really nice home, great use of gold, and lots of cool White House memorabilia)I donated money to her first Senatorial campaign. I've talked with her one on one at least a half dozen additional times. I do not hate Hillary. Her picture (with my daughter) hangs on my wall, which she has autographed.

But I do not support her, and one reason, in addition to my ardently held belief that she would lose in general, and take with her many state and federal democrats (due to high anti- Hillary turn out) in the process. The anti-Hillary sentiment is unfair. But the reality is unfair or not a very large segment of the country can not stand her. However even if I could be guaranteed that a she would not lose in a general election I still would not vote for her in the caucus. I'll support her, if she's the nominee, in the general, but she will lose Iowa no matter how hard the Iowa Democrats work (unfortunately Iowa has never elected a women to a federal office- not a single congresswomen, even when they were more qualified. This is not a negative reflection on Hillary, but on my state). I won't support Hillary in the caucus, because she hasn't been up front. You say you know where she stands on all the issues. That is impossible, unless of course you are really Bill Clinton, which I doubt. Hillary has yet to release her health care plan. She claims she will in September. So I imagine you are accepting on blind faith it is a good plan. Where is she on Darfur? In the you tube Debate, Anderson Cooper had to ask her three times to get her to answer the question of whether she would authorize troops. She kept trying to evade, but for once someone kept on her until she answered. (a lightweight no less!) Where is she on global warming? Does she have a plan? Where is it? What about Iraq. At the ABC debate, she was asked who was right Biden or Richardson. What did she say? She did say Biden was right (2 's), but she first tried to say what she would do, and not answer the question. She has been all over the map on Iraq.

Going into this election I liked Hillary a lot, but didn't intend to vote for her, because I don't think she is the most qualified candidate, and I don't think she can win in November, but the more I see her in debates, or at forums (that I have personally attended) the more I am offended by her, and frankly that surprises me. She insults the intelligence of many in her audience. Which is probably why her poll numbers among college and post graduate degree democrat women are her lowest of any subsection of women. Apparently she thinks those of us in the audience won't notice (or care) that she doesn't answer the question. We do notice, and even if we were going to cut her slack, we know that the media and the GOP won't ignore it in the general election. And her pandering is nauseating. I don't know if she thinks we don't know she is merely pandering, or thinks we see it as a sign she knows something about our group, city, state, organization, etc, and will be so impressed that she took the time to learn the tidbit and put it in her speech. Sorry she thought wrong! Every thing she has done in the last few years has been politically motivated. Spending an obscene amount of money to cream a crappy GOP candidate in her re-election race, so she could say how she can win in heavily GOP upstate NY. Big deal. Wouldn't 10%-50% or more of that money have been better spent trying to help Harold Ford win the Senate seat, or any number of congressional candidates that lost narrowly, instead of blowing away the opponent instead of settling for a merely commanding win? In my mind yes. She pays off Governor Vilsack's campaign debt in exchange for his support. I adore Tom Vilsack, and have known him long before he was Governor, but Iowans know what happened there, and unfortunately being her attack dog in Iowa is not only unbecoming, it hasn't helped her. Her vote on the most recent Iraq spending bill was shamefully political. It was the first and only time she did not vote to fund the war. It is also the only time she did not speak on the Senate floor on the issue, and she did not reveal her vote to the media prior to casting her vote. Sen.'s Biden and Dodd both spoke passionately on opposing sides of the issue. Whether you agree with their vote or not, I respect their doing their duty and speaking out on their position. Hillary and Obama waited until the outcome of the bill was known, and then Obama cast his vote, and Hillary followed 1 1/2 minutes later just before the end of the voting. Any one who does not believe both Hillary and Obama were playing political games with a war vote is in denial, and if you don't think this cowardly act will not come up if either is the nominee, you are fooling yourself. It negatively reflects on their character! When Obama was asked at the AFL-CIO forum/debate why he waited on the vote, etc, he gave a lame excuse about the issue being hard with pros and cons on both sides. It was a cop out, but it at least address the question. Hillary's response was that this was George Bush's war. We know that, but explain why you played politics with the vote, she didn't.

I wish Hillary supporters would explain specifically why she is the most qualified for the job, instead of making conclusory statements. (she's most qualified- really how, what makes her more qualified than Biden, Dodd, Richardson?)

First thoughts

Josh — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:09:52 GMT

Van,

I really thought that you were a more critical reader than you have shown. First of all, I never said anything about the other candidates not getting "slimed" by the "attack machine" in the general election. I said that Clinton would be more hampered by that attack machine than others if she should reach office.

Second, my reference to those with little knowledge about the candidates they support was limited to the posters on this blog. That was clearly stated in my post, and I think that many would agree with that statement. You spend more time than anyone taking criticism from these people. I stand by my original statement.

Third, it is interesting that you presume to know my desires. I thought, again, that my statement was clear about what my desires were. In fact, I believe I said, "So it would seem more efficient if we could actually DISCUSS THE CANDIDATES rather than participate in this meaningless exercise in baseless argumentation." (emphasis added)

So, instead of complying with my request, or simply staying quiet, you continued with baseless argumentation. Not only do I not wish to blog on Obama's website, I would actually rather blog on Clinton's website. Or Biden's. Or Edwards'. Maybe, just maybe, I will learn something about another candidate. Or maybe you will be nice enough to post another link to some poll that I can look at to see who is winning and by how much. I can learn a lot that way, too.

"It's tough to engage in discourse, those whose knowledge you openly hold in low esteem, and whose very opinions you, "guarantee", are uninformed."

It seems to me that you, sir, are the one that is uninformed. Uninformed about me, and uninformed about my intentions. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from presuming to know what I desire, and stick to your polls.

First thoughts

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:47:22 GMT

Thanks for the reply.

Van

First thoughts

Josh — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:07:29 GMT

The pleasure is truly mine.

First thoughts

Sandi Pniauskas, Canada and Carolyn Benivegna, U.S. — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:57:51 GMT

Beyond the politics: Survivors fund and lead conferences in two countries

http://ovariancancerdebate.blogspot.com/

Ovarian Cancer Debate: “The Past Decade in Ovarian Cancer”

WHAT:

Ovarian cancer survivors, Carolyn Benivegna (U.S.) and Sandi Pniauskas (Canada), announce the first ever Ovarian Cancer Survivors Debate. The two conferences are survivor-led and survivor-organized with debate and discussion surrounding the multitude of issues - the past and the present. Open and lively dialogue will be encouraged. Funding for these events has been primarily through the ovarian cancer surivors.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND:

All cancer survivors/caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, pharmacists and the general public are encouraged to attend and participate.

WHERE/
WHEN:

#1: Sheraton Hotel, Novi, MI Sat. October 27th, 2007

#2: Metropolitan Hotel, Toronto, ON Sat. November 3rd, 2007

Time: 10:00 am - 12:30 pm

No cost to attend

Ovarian cancer has no early detection test. The debate and ensuing open forum public discussions will include the specifics of disease-related issues including genetics, access to care and communications. Carolyn Benivegna is a nine year ovarian cancer survivor, a BRCA1 carrier and Founder/Board Member of OCAG-GC. Sandi Pniauskas is an eight ovarian cancer survivor with a genetic predisposition to Lynch Syndrome/Hereditary NonPolyposis Colorectal Cancer and a member of the Cochrane Collaboration. Ovarian cancer survivors Annamarie DeCarlo and Dr. Yi Pan, MD, PhD will co-moderate both events. Bridget Capo (R.N.) and Pamela J. West (R.N.) will provide support and collaborate with Benivegna and Pniauskas in formal publication of the event proceedings.

"Our community is very pleased to offer this exciting open public forum without cost to participants and we encourage active dialogue. We value our professional and family caregivers, but have seen the need, over years, for our community of cancer patients to have open discussions on the real issues that affect their lives. Today, and for the future. We need to appreciate the past, so that we may effectively bring attention to the sufferings experienced in our community. Most importantly we need to escalate change.” Benivegna/Pniauskas