.

I believe that at the very end when they stood up and got into the whispering moments - they actually made the "one ticket" deal.

Btw, what happened to McCain the other day? What a sad old moron. I feel sorry for him.

politics as usual

open up yer pocketbooks, the repubes want to bail out the banks. wait, zum owes me money, i'll go to congress and ask them to cover his bad loan.

I was impressed with both Hilary and Obama, actually. They're both very bright, articulate, quick on their feet, charismatic, and both have a good understanding of the issues and what to do about them. Either one will make a great president.

McCain also has a good understanding of the issues, by the way, but his "get tough" approach is all wrong. I hope he beats that jackass Romney.

And I sure hope we don't get a Republican president, not so much because McCain or Huckabee would totally suck - they probably wouldn't *totally* suck - but because if we have any hope of recovering from the horrors of the past seven years, we need those right-wing reactionaries on the Supreme Court balanced with liberals.

.

So you already hate Romney too? That was quick. For any specific reason - or just because he is not a far left loon?

I lost a great deal of respect for McCain for the way he conducted himself the last few days - namely his childish, desperate and dishonest efforts on the theme of "time tables" in his exchange with Romney.

It's obvious that Obama has a talent to tap to the emotional core of his audience - and I'm sure he means well.

The one thing I like the most about him - and would love for any new president to do, is to get face to face with all the cockroaches of the world - and if we then need to zap them one by one later - so be it. But we should have a fair dialog first. Every time.

And Hillary? Ok, I'd be very happy for HER.

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Green Bay Packers next season. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.


Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a company, City, County, or State. She has never created a job other than some staff positions.


When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated, "so has the pastry chef."

actually, I agree with you.

Yeah, but she cares about people in this country! The pastry chef doesn't.

Btw, who do you think was running this country while Billy was doing Monica? Hmmm?

"So you already hate Romney too? That was quick. For any specific reason - or just because he is not a far left loon?"

There are no far left loons in the race, and you're suffering from severe misperceptions if you think I'm a far left loon. Romney simply doesn't get the issues. I don't hate him, but he's a really poor candidate. The point at which I decided he was almost as bad as Guiliani was when he said in Michigan that the laughably inadequate new fuel efficiency standards were a bad idea because it's the reason those auto industry jobs were gone, that it wasn't fair to the US auto manufacturers to have to re-tool to build more efficient cars, and that the jobs would come back if they just left things as they are.

As I keep saying, this is the biggest issue facing human civilization and he wants to continue our grab the oil foreign policy because "it creates jobs." That is my definition of a complete ass. Even McCain and Lieberman got together in 2003 to sponsor a "climate stewardship act," but unfortunately it didn't pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

Meanwhile Romney and McCain - a much better candidate - have been debating over which one of them can claim the honor of being the biggest f-ing asshole: "I supported President Bush and you didn't"..."no, I did support his holiness President Bush and I'm not a liberal like you..."

In other words, "I'm a much bigger douchebag than you!" "No, I've been a major league douchebag since the 1970s, my friend!"

Dick Morris was wearing stockings and a garter belt while having unprotected anal sex with that pastry chef.

The argument about Hilary's experience is a load of BS. She's clearly a sharp and capable woman who knows the issues inside out, has good answers for them, and understands politics intimately. And she's tough.

It's true that her campaign is stressing her experience and Obama's lack thereof - which is silly and probably not very effective - but saying that she's green is just hopelessly naive.

.

And a vote for a Republican means you hate all people.

Where do you want me to start with her accomplishments? She has a graduate degree and was a very successful lawyer in Arkansas with a history of do-goodedness; her husband was governor, and I'm sure that was when her political education began in earnest.

Then other than Eleanore Roosevelt, she was the only first lady to be politically active. Her most famous thing was the attempt to reform healthcare, but she did a lot of other things too - fighting for women's rights around the world, etc. She was quite outspoken, you'll remember. Pastry chef my ass.

Since then she's spent seven years in the Senate. She did an excellent job representing New York in the first term, which is why she defeated Guiliani and won a second one. In general she's voted on the correct side of all the issues, although not always (in my opinion of course).

That's for openers. But I should also mention that accomplishments are important, but her capabilities and overall competence are what would make me feel very comfortable voting for her.

Whether I will on Tuesday is another matter. I haven't decided between her and Obama yet. As I said, both are excellent candidates - far better than the Democrats put up the last two elections.

(Al Gore would have been a great President, but he ran a pathetic campaign as we all know.)

Because of not enough of hanging chads - it's too bad we'll never know how would Gore handle 911.

Any opinion? Anybody?

Chances are we'd still be in Afghanistan - remember, there were other pressures than 9/11 leading up to that war - and we'd have the same tightened security and espionage all around the world. That's the real "war on terror," only it wouldn't have been called that.

And we wouldn't have lost prestige all around the world, we certainly wouldn't be in Iraq, and tens of thousands of dead people would still be alive - plus who knows how many injured people would still be healthy. More importantly (as far as security is concerned) we'd have a comprehensive energy policy, the lack of which is the real reason for the perpetual "war on terror" that the Bush administration has declared. He wouldn't have had time able to turn around our decades old imperialistic foreign policy, but we'd be on the right track.

The systematic assault on the Constitution perpetuated by the Bush administration in the name of 9/11 wouldn't have happened. There would be none of these "extraordinary renditions," we wouldn't have secret prisons all around the world, and Blackwater wouldn't have the power they now have.

I could go on. Sorry I didn't say what you want me to say, which is that we'd have been acting like sissies and had several more terrorist attacks.

.

So now it's her fault that her husband is a philanderer?

That's an enlightened point of view.

"And just why didn't she stay in Arkansas and 'represent' her folks?"

Maybe because she was in the mood to move to New York. Who freaking cares?

.

That's going to be the next swift boat: no more Clintons. Hopefully people will be smart enough to recognize how shallow it is.

.

Nick, no apology needed. I honestly wanted to hear a real opinion - yours (and others).

I love to hear all points of view. Especially those who differ from mine



Well, I think we would be in Iraq as well, because Gore's administration would have the same intel-reports from all agencies, including those from other governments, as well as from the Clinton's administration - just as Bush did. And don't forget the anthrax scare on top of the 9/11 - and for the sake of this argument let's leave the "Bush planted the anthrax so he can go after Saddam" conspiracy aside for now.

So, I believe if Gore got the job, Saddam would still ignore all the UN resolutions, and all the conditions for surrender in the first gulf war, and would be still shooting at our planes, as we were monitoring the UN approved no-fly zones.

I think he would still pretend that he's piling up WMDs to keep Iran in "check" or just simply kept those he already had - before he moved them out as we were telegraphing our arrival to the world (as many experts now believe)

So, if Gore got the job, the major difference would be that the left in this country would give Gore green light just as they did for Clinton in his Balkan war, despite bombing Belgrade's bridges and killing people who were not any threat to our country, and despite the fact he didn't even bother to get an approval of our congress. And btw, we are still there - and will be there for a long time. But most of the left is fine with that.

Also a second difference would be that the right wouldn't demonize Gore for going after Saddam.

Btw, did you know that Clinton was very close to kicking Saddam's ass in 1998 - and that he, and some of his military experts were blaming Bush 1 for not finishing the job in the first war?

Just saying - Things are always more clear when you take off your partisan goggles.

We need real solutions fast - Fuck the egos or the parties - innocent people are dying every f-ing day.

Well never know whether you're right about Gore in Iraq, but I don't believe you are. My theory is that nobody could tell Saddam that he didn't have the weapons because he would have killed them on the spot. That would explain his behavior.

But there's no question that he was a huge PITA in the region when Clinton was in office too, and while I doubt it, it's not impossible that Gore might also have gone in. However, there's no reason to believe he would have done it (for all intents and purposes) unilaterally; he was dead against the current invasion. His administration wouldn't have been filled with insane radical neo-con idealogues who worked each other up into a frenzy and had to invent a justification to do it right away.

And let's not forget that WMD would never had very much to do with the invasion even if Saddam had had them. It's 99% about geopolitics. Oil imperialism. Not about spreading democracy; Gore isn't stupid enough to believe that he could reshape the Middle East by toppling Hussein. This was all about a lunatic ideology. You've seen the PNAC website, right? They spell it all out very clearly, and it's insane.

That's why I don't believe it would have happened under Gore. And by the way I for one don't have partisan goggles about this or anything else, nor do I believe that Clinton was infallible. My problem with the Republican party is entirely rational: they have such a long history of being not just wrong but idiotically wrong about so many issues that I couldn't possibly vote for one of them even if I agreed with him or her some of the time. Even though I agree with Huckabee about the importance of the arts in schools, for example, I couldn't vote for him for the simple reason that we can't survive another right-wing radical asshole on the Supreme Court.

The Balkans. Well, there are some huge differences, starting with the reason for our involvement in the bombing: nobody in the West wanted a bunch of Islamic fighters to get imported into former Yugoslavia. It was done by NATO, not just the US, and they went through the UN. I'm sure there's more to the situation than that, but it's not the same thing as Iraq at all. Plus it was a response to an urgent crisis, not a discretionary war.

And finally, Clinton is not my idea of the perfect leader either. He was a very effective leader, but he was too imperialistic for my liking. His imperialism was mostly economic - although bombing Libya wasn't in that category - but I would prefer someone considerably farther to the left overall.

Unfortunately that person wouldn't have a prayer of getting elected in this country.

worse than Bush? are you kidding?

one thing lost in all of these arguments is that most republicans are either failed, drug addicted actors or failed, drug addicted businessmen. or failed, drug addicted homosexuals with an anti-gay marriage agenda. sorry re-pubes, this time the electorate is not forgetting. we don't give a shit about the smoke screen anymore. proof positive? i don't see that lame shmuck bush campaigning for any re-pube candidate. why? they dont want his fucking cootie to rub off.

zum, you sound like a fucking bush lovin' parrot. you pretend to be a centrist, but when the chips are down, out comes the limbaughisms. again, licking greedily at the hind teat of the weak, drug addicted right.

i'm over the concept of another run of clintons and bushes in the white house. but to remotely compare hillary to george beatle bush and think that somehow bush was more qualified to be president is lame and hilarious. exactly what would bush and the administration have to do before you conservashits admit he just plain sucks

.

.

No, we would not be in Iraq had Gore won the election. Conspiracy aside, it's well documented that Bush ignored good intel from weapons inspectors that said there was NO wmd's in Iraq and based his sale of the war to the American public on a discredited piece of phoney intel from an extremely questionable source.

I don't understand how you can continue to give Bush a pass on this.

what if.. you're all playing the guessing game.

Bill was. Do you lose your inability to do your job when you have sex?

...funny story! I once..

well lets just say it makes it hard to mix and have sex that the same time.

.

Actually, I remember reading that he liked to talk to senators on the phone while being Lewinskied.

Well J, for one thing, Gore would not have had an incompetent NSA (Condy) who virtually ignored the August memo stating that Al quaida was poised for an attack within the US boundaries. It's a widespread view among many that her inability to address this issue was a root cause of 9/11.