Hillary's War

Hillary Clinton addressed a group of veterans in Kansas City yesterday and proclaimed that "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq," and those changed tactics are "working." "We're just years too late in our tactics," she lamented.

(Note: The first report I read, on Huffington Post and from the New York Post, quoted Hillary as saying "the surge" is working. Now that I have seen the full speech, I can quote her exactly. "We've begun to change tactics" . . . But what else is she talking about except George W. Bush's Hail Mary surge? What other "new tactics" have we begun to try? The surge is the story. She was, of course, talking about the surge. Arguing about how she characterized it misses the essential and crucial point. It obfuscates, as in Karl Obfuscate Rove, which is exactly what every Republican argument is meant to do.)

What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?

I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?

I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated her because that would be the only meaningful way to cast a vote against the horrifying, entirely and eternally discredited Republican party.

I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it.

Comments

[altohone]

US casualties this June and July were higher than last June or July.

Civilian casualties haven't decreased.

178 attacks per day, most against US troops... an all time high.

What is the evidence that the "new" tactics are working?

Oh, Anbar, where we're paying and arming the insurgents contrary to the wishes of the government we supposedly support (unless you're Clinton, Warner or Levin who seem to be encouraging another regime change).

The DLC neocons are selling the Bush lies about the "surge".

Hillary's advisor Allbright was an original signatory of the PNAC plan... Hillary clearly intends to talk out of both sides of her mouth until voters are once again limited to a choice between two pro-occupation candidates.

[BuckBurris]

Some great posts here! Especially Henry and Mommadona. Now you know why Murdoch bought her. She is as Neocon as any Republical. I think I'd rather vote for the real thing even though I hate every crooked thing in their agenda. What I hate even more are traitors like the former Goldwater Girl who pretend something and do the opposite.
She also voted for the Enabling Act and got my ire up pretending that she waas misled. (If she is so gullible, then she isn't smart enougn to get my vote for president. Oh, and she had a deal of trouble passing her bar exam as I recall. Maybe the poor thing is indeed not so smart. In which case, don't offer her to me, Democrats. I ain't buying.)
One last strike against her is her failure to support Lamont in Connecticut. In her heart (if that's what you call it!) she loves Joe Lieberman.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Buck.. passing the bar is EXTREMELY difficult and varies in all states...and it does not mean she is NOT intelligent. But I agree with you on the latter. So you'll dump the democrats and vote repub because you don't like her?

[timm0]

I sure wouldn't... but I have to believe (!) that if she were the Dem nominee, that there will be at least one quality non-R who will see that there will be a chance to win the presidency with less than 40% of the vote and go for it as an independent.

[dartagnan]

"Oh, and she had a deal of trouble passing her bar exam as I recall."

You recall wrong, Buck.

[John Russell FL 5]

AIPAC... BOUGHT AND PAID!

[MPeter]

HRC woman is a real piece of work. She lies with such ease and such a straight face, it is scary. Is GW's twin sister! Those who wonderedout loud when Senator Obama referred to her as Bush-Cheney-lite, the truth finally emerges. It turns out, Senator Obama was way ahead of all us just as he was on getting this war started. The question is: How much more do we really need to know about HRC to make up our minds?

[dijo]

Seems like Obama's judgement keeps proving to be on target. I will vote for judgement over "experience" any day. Rummy and Darth Cheney have YEARS of experience. Look where they lead us ... down the primrose path.
Actually Obama has more years of experience as an elected offical than Hill. Just because she tells us she has experience does not make it so. My husband is a laser physicist, but I don't think for a minute that qualifies me to do his job. Going to the office parties just doesn't prepare me ... sorry.
I would love to see a woman in the white house, but not her ... never!

[John Russell FL 5]

First Lady is experience? So I guess Laura ought to be just about ready to step up to say... Governor of Texas. Oh well that wasn't a tough job anyway. But the point is well taken. Being a spouse is not being President.

So Hillary was making key decisions while Bill was in dispose? Right! Expose her now. Remeber she will be the CENSORSHIP President. Is she going to CENSOR the GOP spin machine in the General just like she CENSORS ME NOW?

[afgail]

As a liberal I can say this. Liberals can really be pissheads sometmes. The same gipes you have against Hillary sound a lot like your grievances against Bill. Not liberal enough - Republican lite. Are you all idiots? Bill Clinton gave the country its best economy in decades, grew the middle class, reduced violent crime, increased home ownership without resorting to junk loans, reduced poverty, increased national parks, protected the environment and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. We had competence in all federal agencies and a budget surplus. If Hillary does half as well, I will be satisfied.

[Slimsmom]

Afgail, I agree about Bill, but Hillary is not Bill. Bill was a true centrist, I wish I could say the same for Hillary.

[freckles]

We need to know what "lies" you are referring to.

The "truth" that Hillary is like Cheney and Bush is the over-the-top hatred that actually hurts Sem. Obama.

[standupnow]

Democrats, wake up now -- prove those national polls wrong and choose a more convincing anti-war candidate than War Party Hillary!

[SpencerCat]

Seriously, Democrats. I won't vote for Hillary or for that matter any of the Demo candidates currently running. Come up with someone better!! Someone who can turn around this horrible war and horrible direction the country is taking. OR YOU LOSE MY VOTE.

[PatGogerty]

Spencercat, Mommadonna, Navy Mom,you are all repeating the history I have seen. In 1968 you or your parents said "if it isnt McCarthy then I wont vote for Humphrey," and we got Nixon.For those of you who do not know most of the deaths in the Vietnam war happened AFTER Nixon took office. So go ahead pout and sulk and throw away your children and grandchildren's future because you don't like Hillary. Just remember no one ever gets everything they want all of life is a compromise. Dont relive old mistakes, learn from history.

[dawlishgal]

I think the polls are misleading, since they have no way to tell who will actually vote in primaries. Easy enough to tell some interviewer on the phone who you would vote for if the primary were today. Harder to get off the ol' duff and go to the polling place for a mere primary. The people who find HC most objectionable will be more likely to show up and vote for somebody else. The ones who choose her because they heard her name somewhere are far less likely to go to the trouble to vote for her. That could change the whole picture in a flash...maybe that is what Rove means when he talks about her "negatives."

[Ramus]

good point

[naschkatze]

Well, I hope you're correct. But if you are not, I too will not vote for her under any circumstance.

[mommadona]

As a woman, I can't vote for her with a clear conscience.

I would LOVE to vote for the first female to hold the post.

I just don't trust her. Just way too "Margaret Thatcher" in her ideology.

Think Shoulder-Padded suit in the '80s.
Just way too quick with that "military" answer.

[NavyMom]

Exactly my feeling. I keep reading that we "have to vote for her" if she's nominee, but she only seems acceptable compared to Bush. I have houseplants I could say the same about. There is no evidence that she has any better ideas about the war, only her statements that it could have been managed better.

[morris1030]

dear momma,
are you a fashion plate, or are you anxious to be chic in a GOP dominated world without shoulder pads?

[Maxiesid]

I couldn't agree more. I did allow myself to feel compelled to vote for Kerry in the last election, even though I felt that he was possibly the worst nominee I have seen since I was old enough to vote. I have always hated that I went against my principles and own common sense to cast my vote in that way, and I wont be doing it again. Our votes may not mean much, but they are an important part of maintaining a democracy, and we all need to get ourselves out there and vote.. even if the neocons try to make us stand in line for hours, even when they change the polling place at the last minute, and even though they try to intimidate most of us to keep us at home.
Use your vote to have a say, even if you feel it is meaningless... it still gives you the satisfaction of having put your opinion officially out there. As I see it right now, I will be writing in Al Gore for my vote, unless someone with some strength of conviction and a sense of purpose shows up on the scene.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Ditto!

[freckles]

when did Gore become the liberal and Hillary the conservative?? If Hillary is too rightwing for you, how does Gore get the nod?

The vote on Iraq was neither left or right (many true conservatives were against it)

Global warming is also neither left or right - it's a matter of bright vs. stone age ideological.

Reforming healthcare was left - now isn't - corporations are crazed to fix the system that is bankrupting them.

What we dont need is a third party that cannot win and couldn't govern if they did. We need someone who is intelligent and well-connected with both parties to make the necessary changes.
That person is Hillary.

Sometimes the best man for the job IS a woman.

[TankerRat]

freckles: I'll grant you that you are correct. Sometimes the best candidate is a woman. But please!!! This is not about gender. This is about America. And HRC is the worst possible choice for POTUS.

[Slimsmom]

Max, investigate and study Kucinich. I like him. He says what he means and means what he says. I know he is a dark horse, but so far, he has my vote in the primaries. He seems to me to be an honest, savvy and smart man.

[WHATEVER7]

Hillary's still trying to justify her vote for going to war. As with Bush, a person who cannnot admit his/her mistakes is a morally weak person... but what is truly frightening is that our "mistakes" are inconsequential compared to theirs.

[Henry]

I think we need to start peeling the layers away from Hillary. She needs to be asked about the realpolitic of the geopolitics of U.S. presence in the Mid East? What would her boy, Barry Goldwater think of such foolishness? PNAC needs to be exposed for the retarded neocolonial obsession that is reprehensible to most sane Americans, Progressive of Conservative. At least Slick Willie told those boys where they could stick it.

[ORSunshine]

And this is why I don't support Hillary. Great post.

As for who to vote for if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, how about Bloomberg?

[Progressive-Pauline]

Nader all over again...Split the DEMS and Bill Henrickson, oops I mean Mitt Romney wins.

[yellowdogSC]

PP,

Many of you (Democrats) live in states where your individual ’00 vote was NOT IMPORTANT! Why? In your state, 1) Republicans won decisively, meeting expectations, or 2) Republicans lost overwhelmingly, surprising no one. Either way, your vote was essentially lost, precisely as though you hadn’t voted at all.

Yes, your vote was…..important:
1) As part of the process. (Should anyone doubt, research the time and effort Repelicans spent blocking individual votes, more so in borderline states - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072607A.shtml)
2) It was important TO YOU because it fulfilled a personal need.
BOTH ENTIRELY VALID, but not worth the gas you burned, if, as you claim, unnecessary votes, such as Nader in Florida ‘00 are wasted.

Your response: “Was I expected to quickly relocate to a state chosen by polls, perhaps distant, at significant expense, in order to cast a vote of greater “value”?”

My response: 1) Was every Nader supporter supposed to abandon their conscience in order to support the views of others (YOU, “the greater good”, or whatever euphemism your conscience can bear.)
2) Only if you wanted Gore to win.

I voted for Gore in SC. Someone else voted for Nader in FL. Your syllogism says both votes were equally useless. Just as wasted as YOUR vote, if you voted in any state where the results were already statistically certain either way at the time your vote was cast. (This does not mean the rest of you get off the hook. You’re geographically blessed, to pay for your weeks of painful uncertainty and hard work as you watched your state polls fluctuate.)

Under the preceding scenario, do you consider the price asked of you, relocating, to be the higher? NEWSFLASH: Everyone considers the cost to them to be greatest. Every one of us paid a price in both ’00 and ’04. But my heart goes out to those that retained their integrity in ‘00, voting their conscience in the face of tremendous pressure to “do the right thing.” Don’t worry. They did.

We all did.

Thank you.

[kellygrrrl]

"Nader all over again, split the Dems"
PEOPLE, heed these words.
This is partially what got us into this mess!

[TankerRat]

Pauline: There we go with that hopeless/helpless "can't win scenario" the R's and the D's like to foist on the public. The public keeps falling for it because they simply don't have the good old fashioned guts to defy it. Look! the candidate that gets the votes wins (at least that's the way it's supposed to be) You want change? Then DAMMIT VOTE FOR IT. And don't forget the term Plurality. A plurality would force the pols to work for the people and not just themselves. What have you got to lose by trying it? Imagine a scenario (if you can) where the House has to decide who'll be POTUS. What happens if a Dem controlled or Repub controlled House selects their parties candidate? Something has to change. If not us- WHO? If not now-WHEN?

[Ramus]

Bloomberg is not going to run. And except for his support of Joe (let's bomb Iran) Lieberman, he's been a good mayor. He's really good at getting things done. A President might give him an important task to do but I'd keep him out of the MidEast.

[baylaw73]

It sickens me to think of voting for her. Blech. And yes, I trumpet the virtues of voting third party. However, this administration has been so monumentally bad, I could not see voting third party in a national election. Of course, I'm from California, so I have no fear of this state going red in '08. Should I?

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Perhaps if they change the law that is not on the table. Just make sure you vote against it. I love CA and hope to move there some day!! It's so far ahead of its time.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

...sorry, I meant that is NOW on the table.

[WoodyCPM]

California? Ahead of its time? The State that gave us Richard Nixon? Ronald Reagan? Ahhhnuld? Do you know anything about the nasty, brutish history of Los Angeles? Ever heard of Orange County? We stole the State from the Mexicans you know. Gore Vida once quipped that San Diego was the Vatican of the John Birch Society. Maybe Northern California is ahead of its time, but ALL of California?

[MysticInd]

You may want to check out Senator Boxer's recently blog within the last week. The repugs are trying to get the vote district by district and divide up CA's electoral vote.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Yep, that is what I was referring to, and I believe I may have seen this on B. Boxers site.

[baylaw73]

Why in CA? Why not everywhere. Oh, wait, is it because we practically always go blue? Damn right I'm voting against the idea. I am proud that my state is being targeted. Must mean we're doing something right.

[kellygrrrl]

No, California will not go Red, and your write-in is meaningless. Sadly, in CA., your vote is almost meaningless as to results. It's unfortunate. The states that have the most power have a fraction of our population.
But would you rather be in Texas where they so wisely just gave TOM DeLAY the nomination to the House?
UGH!!!!!!!!!
If Charles Manson appeared in a press photo huggin' out with Dick Cheney and the Bush Family he, too, could get elected in TX.
Please, someone from TX tell me I'm wrong.

[WoodyCPM]

We stole Texas from the Mexicans too. I've thought for years we should give it back to them.

[morris1030]

bay,

GOP loves a third party. Are you out of your mind? Has America become so hopelessly unable to judge basic poitical choices and compromise?

You are poorly informed about California. New "surge" from GOP to gerrymander voting [Arnold's campaign mgr] districts in order to deliver State of Cal. to GOP and AVOID electoral college is in the works. Google this, or for God's sake get the facts as your ignorance is monumental.

[siegfried]

If the Democrats nominate Hillery they may be the third party.

[baylaw73]

I was kidding, thanks. I am truly amused at your remark. Angry much? So, I have to be out of my mind to consider not voting for the Republicrat parties? Nice. Very open-minded of you. Let's see if you have any decency to apologize for your absurd attack. And you wonder why the other side thinks libs are holier-than-thou snobs. Sheesh.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I'll probably vote for Mickey Mouse. I'm from Florida, my vote won't be counted anyway!

[Poboy]

I was not fooled for one second!

[hopeless277]

If this country is goin' down, it may as well go down in a ball of fire. If Hill gets the Dem nod, I'm voting for Rudy. At least he'll take us all down while wearing fishnet hose and sleve length gloves!

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

...and a Yankee hat! Please don't vote for Giuliani... you'll be voting the mafia into office....not that we don't already have one in the white house.

[splastershoes]

Yeah, no shit. Anyone who names their lawyer "Fredo" obviously endorses the mafia.

[kellygrrrl]

Hopeless, you'd be much better off going with a write-in or just sitting this one out.
PLEASE do not vote for Rude E.
unfortunately, I am hearing this sentiment more and more.
She should really do the country a favor and step aside. Maybe that is her intent with her recent comments about the success of the surge.
I really am starting to get very uncomfortable with how much I'm hearing people say they'll vote for a piece of crap over Hilary. It's not a good situation!

[Tommymac]

Count me in that number. Except I will not vote for a rethug...I'll vote a third party or a write in.

I'll work my buns off to help get real Dems elected to the House and Senate, to get a real majority, but I will not support Hillary for President. At least with a true Democratic Congress, a veto proof one, one with a spine, we can have some hope.

But a Hillary candidacy will energize those rethugs who are on the fence, making Hillary's coattails mighty week.

[lawyeredup]

But why? What has she done for this promogated sentiment? AS far as i can tell, she was a very bright and thoughtful young lady growing up in a middle class America; she has always fault the most vulnerable among us -- the children, she's been a good wife and mother -- raising a beautiful and smart daughter;- So she plays tough, and plays hardball -- and the nay seer call that ambition. So what! The question is; is she qualify to be the president of the united states of America -- I say, YES!
Kellygrrrl, Vote for not only a piece of crap over Hillary if you want, that's your parogative but make sure this piece of crap choose a piece of garbage has a running mate, what else is new, isn't that how we ended up with Bush-cheney?

[jesusquintana]

That was a great post, Frank. Well said. I thought the same thing when I saw the headline. Truthfully, I don't know what I'll do if Hillary gets the dem nomination. The electoral college ensures that my vote won't count in my red state, so maybe I'll just vote for Nader like I did last time. More likely, I'll write in Gore if he doesn't run.

[Ramus]

Yes a good post. What could she possibly be thinking? And, like jesusquintana, the electoral college ensures that my vote won't count in my blue state. The whole electoral college needs to be chucked. Our current election system (not to mention the Senate) gives disproportionate power to rural areas. I still think John Edwards is the Democrats most electable candidate..and he seems to want to help out the poor and middle class workers..rather than the shareholders.

[kellygrrrl]

everyone I talk to thinks Edwards is the way to go, Dems and Repubs
I don't know why he's not picking up more steam
Is it just impossible to stand up to the "Power Families"?
I don't think we need another Bush, Clinton or Kennedy in the WH.
Aren't we all ready for something fresh?

[morris1030]

Another death wish. Another loss for Democrats.

Keep looking for the perfect candidate and if you think it's a spoiler like Nader who has plenty of baggage, good luck.

George Orwell lives.

[recessdawn]

That makes two of us.

[snaggster]

And a whole lot of others. I really think we need a woman for president, but I won't be voting for her. I don't care who the other choices are. Not voting for war mongers.

[ikebona]

Le the real Hillary stand up.
Authorized the war, then became an anti-war candidate, then opposed timetable for withrawal before supporting timetable for withrawal. Now she says the surge is working?

This is the dumbest presidential candidate ever. No judgment whatsoever. Has she been tricked again like with her vote to authorize the war?

wTime for a woman President? Yes. But we need the right one, not this one. I'll take Michelle Obama anytime.

[DaRight]

....

You will stop your whining and Vote for the our candidate (Hillary).....Got it! Good.

Signed, the DLC

.

[jakeinsf]

I'd like to see a woman president, as well. Impeach the bums and make Nancy Pelosi president!

[bigirlsdontcry]

Why don't people get that Hillary and Bill are opposites... remember .. opposites attract each other. She is a war monger, he is pacifist. Unmitigated ambition morphs to aggression. This is Hillary and she does not deserve our vote at any cost. Stop getting lulled and drinking the kool-aid my fellow democrats. Make dust or eat dust.

[Tellmethetruth]

You said she was pandering to Veterans. Why does anyone think disabled Veterans wanted this war? People join the military for all kinds of reasons, to get an education, home life not good, to see the world, get some extra money, etc.etc. etc. They didn't join the military to go into a senseless war and to die in vain for either George W's ego or oil. The majority of the troups in Iraq don't support this war. Just tell the truth, the people who died in this war, died in vain; the people who were forever disabled from this war, will suffer to their graves in vain. Nobility is found in telling the truth, not senseless violence against an unknown enemy taken out against innocent people. When human beings sin and you are the victim of their violent behaviors, it's sin. Violence is sin. The truth heals, and telling the truth will begin the healing of the victims of this war which US soldiers are.

[SensibleAmerican]

You are doing what the right wing slime machine does: take some words out of context and then bash the person!

Once the C-in-C committed our men and women to die on the battlefield, the damage was already done! That WAS spilt milk! Stop crying over it now! Could have been done a lot different?! Most definitely! THAT is what Hillary Clinton is referring to. Yes, it IS a fact that the Taliban has been isolated in Anbar province. And yes, Hillary is right, it is "too little too late". If this war had been fought smartly, just the same number of troops could have made a huge difference!

The Congress gave the President war powers just a year after 9/11 when his approval rating was 73%! There was a whole process defined in that resoultion including but not limited to the UN inspectors doing a thorough job. The fact is that the C-in-C usurped that authority and went straight into war. It is a fact that cherry- picked intelligence was used to get Congress to vote in favor! Hindsight is 20/20 but we need not rule out all perspective just because we are "anti-war"!
Kucinich was ALWAYS against the war and it has shown in his votes in the Congress. It is easy to have a Barack Hussein do some Monday morning quarter-backing especially when he was not even a Senator?! How come his voting record on the war is same as Hillary?! What happened when he got into the Senate?!

Actions speak louder than words. Hillary wants to end the war but she is going to do it right! She is not going to talk fluff just to satisfy a certain demographics of her party!

[dtd]

GTF out of here with that BS argument that this war was ever winable! The war itself was ill-conceived and no amount of troop strength would have accomplished a take over of Iraq with a cultural and political transformation, period! And I'm sure you think using Senator Obama's middle name is colorful, but it only shows the color of your neck!

[altohone]

Advice from someone who thinks the Taliban have been isolated in Anbar province?
Please check a map, Google Taliban, and check your facts before you preach.

The Hillary believed Bush's lies excuse again too... that's such a good defense pointing out gullibility in your favored choice.

Actions do speak louder than words.
Hillary voted for the war, supported the war for years thereafter, and is now selling the neocon "surge working" spin.
That doesn't put her in the "anti-war" 70% of the country demographic.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I can only hope so. If you are correct, then somebody needs to coach her on what NOT to say...because it enraged me and made me feel like she is going to continue with the murder of our soldiers and those poor civilians... who are probably as confused and angry as we are!

[timm0]

Just wondering... who are you? Did you attend the Rupert Murdoch fund raiser for HRC? Do you manage any of the health care insurance and pharma PACs that have pumped her up financially? Or have you just had 100 too many of the kool-aids they serve at the local DLC shrine to HRC?

The question posed in the post is valid. Who says the surge is working? Why would she say something like that when there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support that contention at all?

It leads to many other questions that undermine her credibility - who's telling her that things are going great? What things are so great? What does she know that we don't and how does she know it? All the objective observations show it's making no difference, so why would she say something like this in front of a group of vets?

If the surge is working so well, will she roll out an "ultra-surge" if president and surge all over the place? Maybe a draft so we can surge Iran (she won't talk to them... I guess all she can do is shoot at them?)?

The thing that just makes me insanely sick of HRC is that she is completely disingenuous. Every time I hear her, you can clearly see (unless you're a ga-ga kool-aid slurper) that she's holding stuff back. You never get the full picture. And worse, I have no doubt that she will do and say anything - ANYTHING - to get elected.

THAT is the context of the post. You missed it.

[davidly]

She voted for it, and she didn't read the so-called cherry picked intelligence. That's what matters. I don't care what she says now, so had you criticized this post based upon THIS POSTER'S "bashing" (also too little-too late, in my opinion) then I'd understand.

But the idea that she's going to "end it right" is laughable, and the assertion that she's not going to "talk fluff just to satisfy" certain demographics is astonishing. I guess she's got your vote, but I suspect it is not because, like so many others, she's pandering to you, but rather that she can do no wrong.

Interesting that you choose Obama to criticize as well, and moreover, after having criticized this poster for using GOP tactics, refer to him with his middle name, as if that has anything to do with anything.

At any rate, I urge you to look a little more closely at ALL of the candidates, and not just rubber stamp the likely nominee.

[dtd]

Three of us! I am absolutely stunned that she and a growing number of Democrats fearful of a backlash from a "positive" report from Patreus are running scared yet again. We never learn!

[yellowdogSC]

Four.

Or maybe 4,000 by now.

[timm0]

"growing number of Democrats fearful of a backlash from a "positive" report from Patreus"

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. When the more vocal R head cases around me talk smack about Dems being quitters, they are correct. Concede before there's even a fight, Hillary... yeah, you're my type of gutless, clueless, neocon wannabe coward.

She will never get my vote because I can just never be that blind stupid to vote for a coward.

[WoodyCPM]

That makes three of us.

[Stevelagain]

Hillary Realizes that the 08 election will not be won by some left wing nut who supports surrender to Al Qaeda and defeat for the US as a "victory". In short, the 08 election will be about who has the balls to fight terrorists wherever they may be, not about who is the greatest left wing anti war whimp.

So support for the war in Afghanistan, fighting a WAR against terrorists, not leaving Iraq so rapidly that a genocide is left behind, etc etc are they play of the day.

That giant sucking sound you hear is the air leaving the room as your front-runners leave the left and shuffle toward the middle as they anticipate what moderate democrats and moderate America wants to see from this point out.

[4OBAMATUCK]

I am so tired of hearing the right say cut and run or stay until we win - win what? Our "goal" was to rid the country of 2 things - weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein - I believe that means "mission accomplished"!!! Let's get the hell out of a civil war - let's get the hell out of a country where their soldiers don't want to fight for their country, they want to fight each other! This is where my hard earned money is going instead of to fix our bridges, schools, secure our ports and borders? Wow, have you people been brainwashed! This whole thing has been about control of oil - and it hasn't worked - so let's admit it and get out and elect someone with integrity like Barack Obama who will restore our respect in the world by making sure that if the U.S. ever goes to war again it will be because another country was threatening and actually had the ability to harm us first!

[WIpatriot]

That giant sucking sound is you opening your mouth to frame "surrender to Al Qaeda" as the central point of your posts.