All this talk about needing experience reminds me that GWB had zero experience except at driving four corporations into bankruptcy. He and his business cronies are nothing but pigs at the trough. If you want real experience the prez would have to be 65 years old or more. We've already seen what corporate executives do when they get their hands on public money - they steal it.

I'm looking for a man with new ideas and a fresh start, not somebody chained either to the past or to large corporate interests. Hillary deserves every bit of hard questions because she wants it both ways. I'm tired of that double talk.

If she can't own up to her part in authorizing the war and continuing the support of this war then she should get used to it. It is not because she is Hillary Clinton or that she is a woman, it's because she tries to straddle a fence and still be seen as principled. Besides, the Republicans want her so they can scream at her for four years and make it impossible to govern. Do you want that?

I'll take Edwards or Obama for a new broom and a fresh start over beltway cronyism any time.

Suppose we just talk about each of my party's (Democratic) presidential candidate's record.

It could be worse folks. We could be facing this choice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04repubs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Oh my gawd. I must be a "Hillary hater". I don't like the Senator's vote to go to war with Iraq. I don't like Clinton's vote on Kyle-Lieberman. I don't like Hillary's constant triangulating. I don't care for HRC's acceptance of money from big pharma and the defense industry, and her getting money from many of the same interests as does Joe Lieberman. And I don't approve of Senator Clinton's close connections to NAFTA and the DLC. Yeppers. Those things make me a Hillary-hater alright.

Edwards is doing a great job of helping Obama.

That potty mouth Edwards should be putting some solar panels on his roof.

I am sick to death of the Republicans. And I am sick to death of my party too. My gawd. Is this the best we can do?

I'd have to hold my nose to vote for Hillary, but I would if I had to. Anything would be better than another Republican in the White House. I like Joe Biden, but I think that he talks down to people. I could see a Biden/Edwards ticket, but I also could see an O'Bama/Edwards ticket. I think Biden is the only one with any real experience. Hillary, O'Bama, nor Edwards has any experience. Just because Hillary was First Lady doesn't give her any real experience to be President. I voted for Bill twice, but Bill was Bill and Hill is Hill, and Hill sides with BUSH too much for me!

Hillary also got BUSTED on her vote for the kyle Lieberman to make the Iranian guard a terrorist organization and how the bill also allows for Bush to keep troops in iraq !!

Yes Hillary got busted BIG TIME the truth always comes out.

Than­k God we have a candidate like Barack Obama who speaks the truth and doesn't shift back and forth trying to get votes. Hillarys thinking people won't catch her shifting her point of view from one location (town) to another as she lies lies lies trying to sway the american voters !!

Why is Edwards always lashing out like a cornered rat?

It's one thing to point to Hillary's policies and actions and stuff, and compare them to his own. (They're vitrually identical.­) But he seems to want to make this whole primary into "who can be the nastiest anti-clinton candidate?"

Enough attacking already. Enough of this "I'm the meanest to Hillary" kick he's on. It looks desperate.

Ick.

So, we voters or the candidates must not ask questions or challenge She who is Arrogant now.
this is beginning to look like our democracy is over for sure and we are now under the dictatorship of 2 corrupt families.
this is an absolute joke!
Hillary is not going to intimidate us or her rivals. she is owed nothing!

I always thought it was pronounced "milk-ee-toast"

wtf is milquetoast anyway?

firmly bind the prisoner to the table.

The ropes or straps should be tight enough to prevent any struggling that could injure either interrogators or the prisoner himself: arms, legs and torso should all be restrained. In addition to ropes or straps, it may also be desirable for several interrogators to physically restrain the prisoner using their own weight; use caution to prevent accidental suffocation, however. Proper restraint of the head is essential. The prisoner's head must be kept facing forward and immobile, using either bindings or physical effort by interrogators.

The table should be inclined backwards, so that the prisoner's head is below the level of his chest. In addition to allowing water to properly pool in the subject's throat and sinuses, and allowing water to be inhaled into, then drained from the lungs, this position enhances the sense of disorientation during the process. Ideally, it should be possible to quickly level the table and/or release the subject's head from restraints in the event that the prisoner vomits or aspirates excessive amounts of water.

Consider the setting: the interrogation should be done in a location chosen to elicit maximum fear from the prisoner. For some prisoners, a sterile, medical-like environment will create the greatest sense of terror; for others, a damp and dimly lit basement room will prove more alarming and disorienting. Interrogators may wish to wear hoods or masks, in order to increase this feeling and to prevent the prisoner from identifying his captors. The object of this technique is to strike irresistible panic into the prisoner, in order to best solicit information from the otherwise hostile subject: the more that sense of terror can be instilled before the physical process begins, the more quickly the prisoner will respond to the physical trauma, therefore lessening the duration of the technique, and in turn lessening the chances of physical damage or death. Creating an environment of extreme emotional stress and terror, then, is doing a distinct favor to your prisoner, sparing him from as much physical injury as possible.



[.]


Not torture at all

The word is "milquetoasty" not "milquetoast", you dolt.

For example, "John Edwards is milquetoasty".

If she can't stand the heat, what the hell is she doing in the kitchen? It's the people's call as to whether Edwards' statements were appropriate--though you'd think it was the Clinton-partial media's from the way things have been presented--and ultimately I don't see how anyone who actually watched the event could call Edwards' statements "shrill", as so many in the press have. He is addressing her ability to take a stand on a topic, he is questioning the existence of an actual, stable belief system there, and when she comes up blank, she cries foul.

I am ashamed to think she might be playing the gender card, here. Bill played it for her in a recent interview, and so have others--the "boys' club" comments, for starters. This is an opportunity for her to prove herself, and it has (or had) the potential to be an historic proof of America's gender neutrality. Instead, grasping for some kind of foothold, she's going to exploit her supposed frailty. Whatever respect I had for her to this point is quickly fading, and she is a million miles from having proven herself a reliable candidate for the general, much less a reliable president for the United States.