My best friend and I watched this clown this am. He lives inside a beltway bubble. Has no clue what is going on in America.

I am still waiting to see a party split among Republican and Democrats.

FORGET SAFIRE; HERE’S THE 2007 ‘SATIRE OFFICE POOL’

Bill Richardson is from Spain? I had no idea.

Carmikl @ 9:

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." is something that Democrats should adopt for themselves. Edwards and Obama are so intent on trashing Hilary to advance their own prospects that they're doing the Republican's work for them. I thought the point, or the mission, was to get the Republican's out of the Whitehouse. We can't do that by tearing down our own candidate

They attack Hillary because she deserves to be attacked. She is no better than the idiot we have now. If Hillary wins this election it will be a continuation of the last 7 years. She is just Republican Lite. She will not be good for this country. You can't ask for change and then elect the establishment. I am a bleeding heart liberal and I refuse to support Hillary, I do not believe she can be trusted.

I can hardly think of anything more irrelevant than Bill Safire. The man is a laughingstock and he proves it every time he opens his mouth.

I really dont know anymore why people are so excited about the prospect of a dem white house.

I have nothing against any of the dem candidates, I just think they are more of the same. Hilary and Obama sound just as militaristic as the right. Someone like Kucinich seems like the opposite of Bush/Cheney. Hilary and Obama, same old, same old.

I hope I'm wrong you understand, but I suspect that the big change just wont come.

I was watching this farce this morning and thinking to myself, "I sure hope C&L does a post on this bullshit." What a freaking senile, self-important old moron Safire is. He's completely out of touch with any sense of reality. Rahm Emanuel for VP? Dianne Feinstein? WTF? If that's what passes for congent political analysis these days, well, Hunter Thompson is spinning in his grave. The very idea that MTP would devote even the tiniest portion of it's precious airtime to such a complete and total joke should, should, well.... NOT SURPRISE ANYBODY. Thank you Pumpkinhead, this was pure ridiculousness.

chris @ 10:

Carmikl @ 9:

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." is something that Democrats should adopt for themselves. Edwards and Obama are so intent on trashing Hilary to advance their own prospects that they're doing the Republican's work for them. I thought the point, or the mission, was to get the Republican's out of the Whitehouse. We can't do that by tearing down our own candidate

They attack Hillary because she deserves to be attacked. She is no better than the idiot we have now. If Hillary wins this election it will be a continuation of the last 7 years. She is just Republican Lite. She will not be good for this country. You can't ask for change and then elect the establishment. I am a bleeding heart liberal and I refuse to support Hillary, I do not believe she can be trusted.

So which of the Republican candidates would you prefer to see in the Whitehouse next year? That would be the alternative if Hilary wins the nomination.

AbbeyHoffmansGhost @ 11:

I believe Safire to be way, way off. However, if he is right I will vote for 5lbs. of hamburger before I will vote for Hillary/Emanuel.

Well said! 5 lbs. of hamburger would do far less damage than those two. Emanuel is creepy, but Hillary is just plain wrong.

"I'd rather vote for something i want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it." -Eugene Debs

Peace!

Hornet @ 16:

I was watching this farce this morning and thinking to myself, "I sure hope C&L does a post on this bullshit." What a freaking senile, self-important old moron Safire is. He's completely out of touch with any sense of reality. Rahm Emanuel for VP? Dianne Feinstein? WTF? If that's what passes for congent political analysis these days, well, Hunter Thompson is spinning in his grave. The very idea that MTP would devote even the tiniest portion of it's precious airtime to such a complete and total joke should, should, well.... NOT SURPRISE ANYBODY. Thank you Pumpkinhead, this was pure ridiculousness.

I don't get the outrage here. I personally agree with you that that Emanuel and Feinstein aren't even close to the best choices for VP here, but from a strategic point of view, I certainly think it's possible that either of them COULD be picked. I don't know why that seems to bother you oh so much, but I suppose one day you'll have the revelation that the world does indeed exist just fine without everyone agreeing solely with you.

"Invade and bomb with Hillary and Rahm ." That would have been funny if it wasn't so freakin' sick . Also , Dems are more worried of a Clinton-Pelosi split than of another terror attack ?????? Way to frame the idea that they're soft on terrorism, as Timmeh sits there like a grinning lump. And way to throw in "soak the rich tax backlash " . Yeah, we're all worried about that, you corporate gob.

Even if Hillary were to choose Gen. Wes Clark as here running-mate (considering his endorsement -- it's a good possibility) I cannot, in good conscience -- support her candidacy.

jerzen @ 26:

Even if Hillary were to choose Gen. Wes Clark as here running-mate (considering his endorsement -- it's a good possibility) I cannot, in good conscience -- support her candidacy.

So who would you support if she got the nomination? If you don't vote you're helping the Republicans nearly as much as if you vote for a Republican.

Safire is an asshole who hasn't been right about anything for years. A neocon stooge. His language columns were great.

Obama should choose Richardson. Richardson would make a great negotiating ambassador and would seal the Latino vote. Latinos vote. Bigtime.

He picked Rahm Emanuel as her VP.

Looney tunes.

Safire is a right wing apologist extraordinaire.
He has spent the last 15 years being dead wrong, why should he change now?

jerzen @ 31:

Carmikl @ 28:

jerzen @ 26:

Even if Hillary were to choose Gen. Wes Clark as here running-mate (considering his endorsement -- it's a good possibility) I cannot, in good conscience -- support her candidacy.

So who would you support if she got the nomination? If you don't vote you're helping the Republicans nearly as much as if you vote for a Republican.

I'd have to go with the 5lbs. of hamburger.

Let's hope the 5lbs of Hamburger Party doesn't siphon off enough Democratic votes to put Rudy in the Whitehouse.

Anyone who thinks Diane would be a good choice, doesn't live in California.

Carmikl @ 38:

jerzen @ 31:

Carmikl @ 28:

jerzen @ 26:

So who would you support if she got the nomination? If you don't vote you're helping the Republicans nearly as much as if you vote for a Republican.

I'd have to go with the 5lbs. of hamburger.

Let's hope the 5lbs of Hamburger Party doesn't siphon off enough Democratic votes to put Rudy in the Whitehouse.

Let's hope the Dems don't nominate Hillary. That would solve everything...now wouldn't it?

Johnny2Bad @ 42:

Carmikl @ 38:

jerzen @ 31:

Carmikl @ 28:

I'd have to go with the 5lbs. of hamburger.

Let's hope the 5lbs of Hamburger Party doesn't siphon off enough Democratic votes to put Rudy in the Whitehouse.

Let's hope the Dems don't nominate Hillary. That would solve everything...now wouldn't it?

Not if whoever does win can't beat the Republican candidate.

jerzen @ 45:

Carmikl @ 35:

jerzen @ 29:

Carmikl @ 25:

If it comes down to a slightly more palatable version of more of the same, personnaly speaking -- I'd feel better for opting out of the game. If in fact, Hillary wins the nomination, the consequences of her nomination will be everyones to suffer -- not just those of us that are stupid enough to support her.

Peace!

Assuming that you would normally vote for a Democrat, opting out would be passively supporting the Republican candidate whoever that is. Can you think of a Republican candidate who would be preferable to Hilary as president?

Actually, providing the "democrats" continue to hold the majority in congress, I would say that Ron Paul would be a better choice. I believe that those who support Hillary for president are going to learn for themselves, through their own errors, that the differences between Hillary and the other republicans range somewhere between slight and none. The other Democratic candidates, with the exception of Biden -- are at least acceptable on some levels. The only candidate that offers the possibility of actual change is Dennis Kucinich. If people weren't so shallow as to concern themselves with the prospect of electability being contingent on a persons physical attributes, as opposed to their voting records and ideas toward lasting change, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Peace!

And how likely is it that Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate?

If the Democrats can't field a candidate who can snag more of the electorate than Rudy, they don't deserve my vote. I don't vote for vengeance, I vote for whoever will best represent my views. If the Dems force me to look elsewhere for my representation that's their problem, not mine.

I forgot about General Wesley Clark as a possible running mate. Add to all the candidates mentioned in my predictions.

Carmikl @ 46:

jerzen @ 45:

Carmikl @ 35:

jerzen @ 29:

Assuming that you would normally vote for a Democrat, opting out would be passively supporting the Republican candidate whoever that is. Can you think of a Republican candidate who would be preferable to Hilary as president?

Actually, providing the "democrats" continue to hold the majority in congress, I would say that Ron Paul would be a better choice. I believe that those who support Hillary for president are going to learn for themselves, through their own errors, that the differences between Hillary and the other republicans range somewhere between slight and none. The other Democratic candidates, with the exception of Biden -- are at least acceptable on some levels. The only candidate that offers the possibility of actual change is Dennis Kucinich. If people weren't so shallow as to concern themselves with the prospect of electability being contingent on a persons physical attributes, as opposed to their voting records and ideas toward lasting change, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Peace!

And how likely is it that Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate?

I would say, about as likely as things changing for the better with Hillary Clinton as President.

Goseph Gerbils @ 51:

For crying out loud, hold your nose if you have to, but vote for the Democrat. If the choice is between holding it and cutting it off to spite your face, how stupid do you have to be to choose the latter?

If I may steal from the NRA, Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election; people who voted for Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Be my guest, do it again and destroy the planet why dontcha.

Not holding my nose again - I did that when you'll decided to take Kerry over Dean. I'll let the cards fall where they may if the Democratic party chooses Hillary to represent us. I am not going to vote for the likes of a Clinton again not in this lifetime. NO WAY!!!

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 53:

Carmikl @ 9:

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." is something that Democrats should adopt for themselves. Edwards and Obama are so intent on trashing Hilary to advance their own prospects that they're doing the Republican's work for them. I thought the point, or the mission, was to get the Republican's out of the Whitehouse. We can't do that by tearing down our own candidates.

I can't see either one as her running mate. Nor can I see Hilary as the running mate of either of them. We lost the last election in part because John Kerry had a bad case of Hoof in Mouth disease. It looks like we're gonna shoot ourselves in the foot again.

I just can't figure it out. Almost all of the netroots distrust the Republican known as "Hillary", yet the mainstream media crows and crows about her supposed "huge lead". The same with the Democrats I know in real life ESPECIALLY women. There is a bad smell surrounding this one...

But to the quote, the Centrist Obama has just been ridiculed for not running an attacking campaign! Where have you been? Everyone always claims they want a candidate to stand up, tell the truth, admit when they were wrong, give the MOST details on policies, and NEVER sling any mud. Look where it got him. While Hillary aids have been on overtime pumping up smear campaigns and whisper lies.

Honesty. You know what? That's BULLSHIT! It never works. Sure, some poor sucker always says, "Oh gee golly, that's what they say they want and I'd rather be an honest man... Great!" But then the voters screw 'em and screw 'em again. I'm getting sick of hearing how Democrats want nice people in office. Bull. No they don't, the throw nice people, good people that could help this country under the damn bus, just like the Republicans.

What as ALL of this primary been about so far? Money. Money, money, money. Hillary makes more money. So (regardless of whatever advertising) who gets more FREE press? Hillary. Well, with a system like that are you really surprised at insincerity and corruption? The Democrats are JUST as guilty. Wake up.

Disclosure: I do happen to think that Democrat (barely... Kucinich is the only lefty, but he's a Space Cadet.) Edwards campaign has fallen for that this year (much more than the last election). He is trying to be honest, he opened early with BY FAR the most detailed policies on health care and other core issues. He admits his mistakes boldly. So what happens? No money, and when people talk about his "haircut" as opposed to Hillary's haricut (which mysteriously never comes up) he slides in the polls. The MSM ignores the hell out of him, even more so than crazy 1%ers on the Republican side!! Less money, zero free press.

Voters want a sensible congenial candidate? What a steaming pile. All they want is to be entertained by gossip: "Ooooh Dean made a sound once while cheering!" "ZOMG, nuh-uh, get out!" "YEAH-HUH, he, like, so TOTALLY did!" "ZOMG Deanskreemz LOLZ!!" "ROFLCOPTRZ!!11" "Yeah he should quite 'cuz he yelled once. You can't be prezdint if you yelled once."

Sorry for the rant, but deep down you know it is true... the fate of the country is determined only by a few billionaires and hordes of people with the attention span of a gnat.

Wes Clark, Sec Defense, sure. But VP should have a very good grasp of Domestic policy. Wes as other useful talents. I think Dodd would make an OK VP, as well as Obama. Both seem willing for he most part to go along with someone else's main agenda, if the goals match their own. The Dems don't have enough (ex)Governors for Pres and VP slots...

I look forward to Al Gore rebuilding the EPA as a cabinet official. I think that would be great for him, and proove he is sincere rather than a just a glory hound.

Very well put.

Carmikl @ 55:

DISCO INFERNO @ 54:

Goseph Gerbils @ 51:

For crying out loud, hold your nose if you have to, but vote for the Democrat. If the choice is between holding it and cutting it off to spite your face, how stupid do you have to be to choose the latter?

If I may steal from the NRA, Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election; people who voted for Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Be my guest, do it again and destroy the planet why dontcha.

Not holding my nose again - I did that when you'll decided to take Kerry over Dean. I'll let the cards fall where they may if the Democratic party chooses Hillary to represent us. I am not going to vote for the likes of a Clinton again not in this lifetime. NO WAY!!!

So you believe that whoever the Republican candidate is will be better than Hilary? Just don't complain about all of the voters who put the Republican in office if you didn't use your vote to keep him out of office.

If you like Hillary and you want her and Bill in the White House again - Good for you! I don't and you shouldn't expect me to vote for her, because I won't and I'm not alone in that I won't vote for Hillary in the nomination or general elections. If the Democratic voters decide to place Hillary against a Republican that is not my fault - if the Republican beats her - well to bad that is on your back like the monkey Hillary will is. So don't expect me to vote for Hillary unless pigs fly first. bok bok

jerzen @ 26:

Even if Hillary were to choose Gen. Wes Clark as here running-mate (considering his endorsement -- it's a good possibility) I cannot, in good conscience -- support her candidacy.

And that's who it'll be.

I can tolerate him. Still won't vote for her. Sorry. : (

Carmikl @ 35:

jerzen @ 29:

Carmikl @ 25:

jerzen @ 20:

Of course, if that's the way you vote, you'll get another 4 years of a Republican in the Whitehouse. Would that be better than 4 years of Hilary?

If it comes down to a slightly more palatable version of more of the same, personnaly speaking -- I'd feel better for opting out of the game. If in fact, Hillary wins the nomination, the consequences of her nomination will be everyones to suffer -- not just those of us that are stupid enough to support her.

Peace!

Assuming that you would normally vote for a Democrat, opting out would be passively supporting the Republican candidate whoever that is. Can you think of a Republican candidate who would be preferable to Hilary as president?

Now you are sounding like a Republican troll. Answer this. Can you think of a Republican candidate that would be preferable to Hillary? You see, Hillary is Republican. Has been all her life. Republicans know this. That is why all the fake outrage, and why even Faux News Rupert Murdoch endorses and supports her. Put aside partisan politics. That is what they want. Just because there is a D beside her name, does not make her a Dem. Joe Lieberman anyone?

What if they had an election and nobody voted?

ConcernedCanuck @ 62:

You see, Hillary is Republican. Has been all her life.

Blah, blah, blah. You're like the John Birchers and Sen. Taft and William Buckley back in the 50s, when they accused Eisenhower of being a communist sympathizer.

What's your point?

ConcernedCanuck @ 64:

What if they had an election and nobody voted?

Well, if Nobody wins Nobody loses. Seeing that ALL of the "front runners" will undoubtedly cause more problems throughout the world -- I think it is safe to assume that we would ALL be better off.
I believe the world, this country included, would be a happier safer place. No leaders are always preferable to bad leaders.

Peace!

jerzen @ 68:

ConcernedCanuck @ 64:

What if they had an election and nobody voted?

Well, if Nobody wins Nobody loses. Seeing that ALL of the "front runners" will undoubtedly cause more problems throughout the world -- I think it is safe to assume that we would ALL be better off.
I believe the world, this country included, would be a happier safer place. No leaders are always preferable to bad leaders.

Peace!

Now THAT is common sense!!! Peace back at ya!

Hillary/Rahm Emmanuel??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Even the pathetically clueless Beltway Democrats wouldn't be stupid enough to team Hillary with Emmanuel. Hey Safire - stay retired will ya, you senile old geezer.

ConcernedCanuck @ 67:

sdlhjdfl @ 65:

ConcernedCanuck @ 62:

Carmikl @ 35:

Now you are sounding like a Republican troll. Answer this. Can you think of a Republican candidate that would be preferable to Hillary? You see, Hillary is Republican. Has been all her life. Republicans know this. That is why all the fake outrage, and why even Faux News Rupert Murdoch endorses and supports her. Put aside partisan politics. That is what they want. Just because there is a D beside her name, does not make her a Dem. Joe Lieberman anyone?

hahahaha. I love crazy conspiracy theorists.

Hey, did you hear why Mike Gravel wasn't invited to the next Democratic debate? Because he's really a FAR rightwing republican. That's also why FOX News isn't attacking him. DUH, it's so clear.

You know what is clear? American stupidity. Let me see, the Clintons and Bushes are friends and hang together. Heck ol' Bill and ol' Georgie Sr. even plays golf together, do lectures, shake hands, kiss babies, hey maybe they even let girls smoke their cigars together! But anyone with an ounce of sincerity or integrity that actually thinks there is any difference between D and R are either fooling themselves, or completely deserve the retards they elect, including Shrub. Let me see if I can explain this "conspiracy" to you. I'll type slow so you understand. BOTH parties have the same corporate donors. BOTH parties current leaders have the same corporate donors. BOTH parties see this as owing their corporate donors once elected. Duh.

Gosh. Well, believe it or not, there are some people who I play golf with, and I don't let them determine every decision I make, and who I'll sell out to. But I guess I'm just too stupid to fall for those tricks or something.

And really? Both parties have corporate sponsors? Color me flabbergasted. I'M MOVING TO CANADA RIGHT NOW.

But if you really think that a few bad candidates constitue an entire party and all it's followers, well, I don't imagine you'll get much farther in politics than being an annoying nonsensical commenter on a site such as this.

Annoyed Canuck @ 73:

ConcernedCanuck @ 69:

Annoyed Canuck @ 66:

ConcernedCanuck @ 62:

Blah, blah, blah. You're like the John Birchers and Sen. Taft and William Buckley back in the 50s, when they accused Eisenhower of being a communist sympathizer.

What's your point?

I can't bring myself to typing it out. It's like talking to small children on blogs sometimes. Blah, blah, blah.......a little sllllllllllllllllloooooooooowwwwwww

So everybody is supposed to genuflect before your all-knowing cynicism?

You think it's news to anyone that the system - meaning both parties - is tainted by corporate money? Like this is new?

Why the f*ck do you bother posting here, in a political debate, if you think both sides are irretrievably bad?

Go knit yourself a doily.

Um, your name says "annoyed canuck"....why the f*ck are you posting on American politics here anyway, seeing as you are all knowing? I am pointing out something you don't seem to grasp, yet get angry because someone is trying to point it out to you. So I'll type slower so it doesn't have an ill affect on your knitting. The leaders thrown down America's throat are the ones that the elite corporate buttwipes WANT elected you doofus. Quick, surf the internets and check out all Rep and Dem type websites. Who says they'll vote for Hillary? IT sure as hell ain't the Dem sites. Now why do you s'pose that is? I can't believe you are a Canuck. I haven't met one as rude and ignorant yet.

[take it back OT and stop scratching each other's eyes out, or both canucks will get booted out of the sandbox. - site monitor]

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 53:

Carmikl @ 9:

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." is something that Democrats should adopt for themselves. Edwards and Obama are so intent on trashing Hilary to advance their own prospects that they're doing the Republican's work for them. I thought the point, or the mission, was to get the Republican's out of the Whitehouse. We can't do that by tearing down our own candidates.

I can't see either one as her running mate. Nor can I see Hilary as the running mate of either of them. We lost the last election in part because John Kerry had a bad case of Hoof in Mouth disease. It looks like we're gonna shoot ourselves in the foot again.

I just can't figure it out. Almost all of the netroots distrust the Republican known as "Hillary", yet the mainstream media crows and crows about her supposed "huge lead". The same with the Democrats I know in real life ESPECIALLY women. There is a bad smell surrounding this one...

But to the quote, the Centrist Obama has just been ridiculed for not running an attacking campaign! Where have you been?

The obvious question here is, "ridiculed by who?

We don't have any perfect candidates, but the idea is to get the Republicans out of the Whitehouse, and we can't do that by tearing down the candidates we have. Every time a Democratic candidate comes up with a criticism of another Democratic candidate you can bet some Republican will use it in the general campaign, and they will use it in quotes.

Hilary is not my candidate. Until recently Edwards was my candidate, but I think Elizabeth Edwards is doing more harm than good with her attacks. The real objective though is to win back the Whitehouse. It's not likely that we'll get a veto proof majority in either house of Congress so we need the Whitehouse to effect any change. I don't care if Mickey Mouse wins if he runs as a Democrat. He's got to be better than any of the candidates the Republicans are running.

ConcernedCanuck @ 76:

Annoyed Canuck @ 73:

ConcernedCanuck @ 69:

Annoyed Canuck @ 66:

I can't bring myself to typing it out. It's like talking to small children on blogs sometimes. Blah, blah, blah.......a little sllllllllllllllllloooooooooowwwwwww

So everybody is supposed to genuflect before your all-knowing cynicism?

You think it's news to anyone that the system - meaning both parties - is tainted by corporate money? Like this is new?

Why the f*ck do you bother posting here, in a political debate, if you think both sides are irretrievably bad?

Go knit yourself a doily.

Um, your name says "annoyed canuck"....why the f*ck are you posting on American politics here anyway, seeing as you are all knowing? I am pointing out something you don't seem to grasp, yet get angry because someone is trying to point it out to you. So I'll type slower so it doesn't have an ill affect on your knitting. The leaders thrown down America's throat are the ones that the elite corporate buttwipes WANT elected you doofus. Quick, surf the internets and check out all Rep and Dem type websites. Who says they'll vote for Hillary? IT sure as hell ain't the Dem sites. Now why do you s'pose that is? I can't believe you are a Canuck. I haven't met one as rude and ignorant yet.

[take it back OT and stop scratching each other's eyes out, or both canucks will get booted out of the sandbox. - site monitor]

OK, I'll make nice. I generally do around here.

I like debating. What I don't like is the pose of damning both sides and talking down to those who state their views in good faith. That ain't debate, it's mere condescension, and it invites contempt.

I'm off. Have fun, all.

Hillary and Joe Lieberman
Obama and....Joe Lieberman!
Edwards and.................................................................................
......................................................................................Richardson?

ConcernedCanuck @ 77:

74 sdlhjdfl Says: "But if you really think that a few bad candidates constitue an entire party and all it’s followers, well, I don’t imagine you’ll get much farther in politics than being an annoying nonsensical commenter on a site such as this"

A few? A few? Name one worth voting for. Name one that has a chance in hell of winning that isn't either corrupt, a liar, a corporatewhore, or all of the above in a nice tidy package.

Haha, the good ones DON'T have a chance of winning, you're right. But clearly you're not even being serious anymore by asserting that simply because there are no good dem frontrunners that there are no good dems at all.

Kucinich is good, and so is Gravel, but by your logic they don't exist as democrats since they aren't currently the frontrunners? haha weird.

I predict none of Safire's predictions will come true on the basis that he's a right winger and they're wrong about everything.

These are fun predictions to make, because you can only get one wrong for each party. I've been saying for a long time that Bill Richardson is the perfect candidate for ANY dem nominee; I must say, as goofy as Safire was, his point about Richardson being against the war does make some sense, but I think (and naively hope) that Hillary will move towards ending the war and will be fine with having Bill (um, Richardson) by her side.

Did anybody else catch that? I swear when bobble head said Patreus's name the first time I distinctly heard a "P", but the second time I could have sworn it was a "B"... IE Betray-us rather than Petraus...

Freudian slip anyone?lol

Dodd-Edwards. There's a good way to go.

Kyle @ 92:

Dodd-Edwards. There's a good way to go.

Only if you flip the names. Though I think a Edwards-Webb ticket would be very good for the country. Then you could through Sec. of State Biden in there and you have the makings of a strong cabinet

chris @ 93:

Carmikl @ 18:

chris @ 10:

Carmikl @ 9:

So which of the Republican candidates would you prefer to see in the Whitehouse next year? That would be the alternative if Hilary wins the nomination.

I don't prefer any Republican in the White House, that's why I will not support Hillary. I think we need a different course in this country and she is more of the same. She is too indebted to lobbyists and corporate hacks.

So if Hilary is the Democratic candidate, will you vote for the Republican candidate?

yellow dog @ 87:

FWIW - Stalin was a socialist

No, actually, he was a Stalinist. The first and most ardent Stalinist of all. ;)
The specific socio-economic system didn't matter - the ability to control it absolutely DID matter.

Safire. I thought he was dead. He sure looked like it.

If Safire is a Republican why should we care who he picks?
Forget it.

Here we go again, for all you people who just don't get it.... Tony Kushner from before the 2004 election:

"There are a lot of politically active young people, but I feel that we've misled them. I have great admiration for the essayists and writers on the left, but the left decided at some point that government couldn't get it what it wanted. As a result, it's a movement of endless complaint and of a one-sided reading of American history, which misses the important point: Constitutional democracy has created astonishing and apparently irreversible social progress. All we're interested in is talking about when government doesn't work.

. . . .

Listen, here's the thing about politics: It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.

....

The system isn't about ideals. The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world. Then the citizenry makes them become great. FDR was a plutocrat. In a certain sense he wasn't so different from George W. Bush, and he could have easily been Herbert Hoover, Part II. But he was a smart man, and the working class of America told him that he had to be the person who saved this country. It happened with Lyndon Johnson, too, and it could have happened with Bill Clinton, but we were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that we sat back and carped.

. . . .

I think what one has to do is to ask oneself, "Do you want to have agency in your own time?" If you really believe that it's your place to leave the world a better place than it was when you arrived, then how do you get the power? In this country, the most powerful country on earth, you get it by voting the right people into power. There are means of getting the power out of the hands of the very rich and the very wicked. It still flabbergasts me that people didn't see this during the last presidential election. We had had 12 years of Reagan and Bush to prepare us for this outcome. It couldn't have been clearer who we were dealing with. George W. Bush was -- is -- a little robot programmed by his daddy to punish Saddam Hussein and get as much money for the petrochemical bandits. It's absolutely jaw-dropping that Democrats saw that and decided instead that they wanted to send a message to their own party that they weren't happy with it for some relatively minor offense. Why didn't we turn out in vast numbers for Gore? Why did we vote for Ralph Nader or not at all? We would absolutely not be in Iraq today if we had a Democratic president in the White House, and I don't need to know any more than that."

Yeah, sit this one out or vote some third party...when a republican gets elected at least you will still have your "moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future."

Good luck with that.

liberAL @ 99:

Emanuel would be as bad as Lieberman was on the Kerry ticket. Emanuel is a sneaky, back-stabbing, power-grabbing man.

Fact...

and

Everything safire said was lame....

Suprisingly, no one here has mentioned Sen. Russ Feingold as a possible V-P candidate.

poor ol' dotter...

He's totally out of touch on all counts... :P

BS is irrelevant!

The current crop of nytimes assholes - brooks, friedman, sagourney - have no credibility or integrity and dowd is a gossip columnist of politics with miniscule credibility. So the retired safire is taken out of mothballs to demonstrate that his own retirement was a good thing for journalistic integrity and editorial credibility.

William Safire is a twerp.

Safire's take on Rahm Emanuel: "the most powerful voice in the House of Representatives that agrees with Hillary Clinton on foreign affairs although he's a rootin' tootin' liberal on domestic affairs"

And on Pelosi: "the Nancy Pelosi far left party, which is the base"

Bwaahaaa! These wingnuts are beyond all redemption cognitively. They are brain-dead. As for Safire specifically, the cat should drag him back outside and re-bury him; he apparently died years ago, and hasn't had a new thought since the seventies.

Apparently, William Safire:

1) is a fool, who thinks that
2) no Democrats are running for President, but Clinton and Obama.

Or maybe his paycheck just depends on him acting like that's the case.

Carmikl @ 78:

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 53:

Carmikl @ 9:

Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." is something that Democrats should adopt for themselves. Edwards and Obama are so intent on trashing Hilary to advance their own prospects that they're doing the Republican's work for them. I thought the point, or the mission, was to get the Republican's out of the Whitehouse. We can't do that by tearing down our own candidates.

I can't see either one as her running mate. Nor can I see Hilary as the running mate of either of them. We lost the last election in part because John Kerry had a bad case of Hoof in Mouth disease. It looks like we're gonna shoot ourselves in the foot again.

I just can't figure it out. Almost all of the netroots distrust the Republican known as "Hillary", yet the mainstream media crows and crows about her supposed "huge lead". The same with the Democrats I know in real life ESPECIALLY women. There is a bad smell surrounding this one...

But to the quote, the Centrist Obama has just been ridiculed for not running an attacking campaign! Where have you been?

The obvious question here is, "ridiculed by who?

We don't have any perfect candidates, but the idea is to get the Republicans out of the Whitehouse, and we can't do that by tearing down the candidates we have. Every time a Democratic candidate comes up with a criticism of another Democratic candidate you can bet some Republican will use it in the general campaign, and they will use it in quotes.

Hilary is not my candidate. Until recently Edwards was my candidate, but I think Elizabeth Edwards is doing more harm than good with her attacks. The real objective though is to win back the Whitehouse. It's not likely that we'll get a veto proof majority in either house of Congress so we need the Whitehouse to effect any change. I don't care if Mickey Mouse wins if he runs as a Democrat. He's got to be better than any of the candidates the Republicans are running.

Well this New York Times article will get you started, which at times itself sounds like a hitpiece:

"Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled — and in some cases shared — the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics."

But the MAJOR fucking irony here? Gosh, guess who started "leaking" all this "concern" press starting a few months ago? Guess who hires campaigners to register on Obama's sight and then bad mouth him with back-handed compliments?

This is all a bullshit campaign by Hillary's legions of smear experts, and it is paying off in spades. She already gets fawning media coverage, despite a public and honestly a Democratic base that doesn't like her. She has been on the attack for months she just isn't upfront about it. She does it indirectly -- Rove style -- and the people lick this vomit up off of her boot. Zero integrity, just same old politics.

The gambit is if Obama doesn't attack, Ms. Rove Ms. Hillary's Wormtongues can say, "Oh, he is weak. He doesn't have what it takes. He didn't respond to us, er, his supporters and attack." If he does attack, obviously, "Oh, Obama is just desperate. We Hillarites would NEVER attack or fight dirty. Honest. Obama just doesn't have what it takes."

So your call for civility and unity comes FAR too late, and is missing the real story of who is the attack dog and the mean spirit of Democratic politics today. By urging people not to start "tearing down our own candidates" you've already bought into Hillary's premise that such a thing has not already been happening for months. But sadly, it certainly has, my friend.

You want to know why American voters are cynical? This is why.

Well "register on Obama's sight website" is what I meant, obviously. :(

navyswan @ 123:

s. of k. m.

thought you might enjoy this little slice of electioneering by Mrs. Clinton

Hillary Clinton woos man who nearly ruined her husband
· Campaign staff use Drudge Report against poll rivals

"A decade ago, the internet journalist Matt Drudge was very nearly Bill Clinton's ruin, after leaking the story of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. These days, Drudge is one of Hillary Clinton's best kept secrets.

During the presidential campaign, the Drudge Report, once known as the scourge of Democrats, has betrayed a surprisingly soft side for the woman."

To all those who suspect she may be a Republican in sheep's clothing, you may be on to something.

I'll read that link, thanks.

I really hate to read my own post and hear it sound so anti-Hillary, instead of just for someone else. I know that's hypocritical. But I just so sick of this "we have to support the front runner" crap. No "we" don't and who is "we"?! This country used to root for the underdog if anything. THAT is how you get real change.

If you are a Clinton supporter, fine, just know what you are getting into is all I'm trying to say. And negative politics (although cleverly done) are one of her things. She makes a great senator that way. Lots of pork and compromise and all that.

I don't know much about the right side of the "blogosphere" (or the left beyond NYT, Slate, and Salon... AND C&L, of course) secretly wishing for Hillary. But I do know that when you add up all her statments and votes it doesn't make any damn sense. It doesn't add up to a real human being with a consistent understandable perspective of how the world is, and how it should be. And she simply side with the neocons more often than the "liberals" known as Democrats.

Wow...I did just find this googling however, looking for more info on her and neocons! Rupert Murdoch loves Hillary Clinton He held a fund raiser for her? How the hell'd I miss that?? No wonder she has so much cash.

Stuff like this is just too aggravating. I've got to lay off politics for a few weeks...

I can't believe anybody posting on this blog would even CONSIDER not voting for the Democrat in '08 regardless of who is the nominee and VP. WTF is wrong with you people who are saying you're going to 'hold out' from voting or some bullshit like that? Are you a Democrat? Then voting mf-ing Democrat, don't drop out completely like some ignorant idealist/idealogue. That would be a move much like Rudy Giuliani rooting for the Red Sox in the WS. Shit, it would be like voting for Giuliani for President... or any of the loony Rs. Not to mention, the posters who say that stuff make no rational argument either way, but apparently just like to put Republican labels on DEMOCRATS or flippantly say "well D/R is just the same." What a total load of bullshit. You can disagree with Hillary on AUMF Iraq vote (as I did from the get-go) but for fucks sake she is a Democrat. As a NY liberal, I am psyched at the job she is doing as my Senator (again, despite the AUMF Iraq vote). Imho she is clearly the most competent person of either party running for president (although I really like each and every Dem candidate). I personally don't even care which Dem wins, I just can't wait until ONE of them is President. Sheesh, to think a real Democrat would sit this election out? Just unbelievable.

Also, anybody who says they are going to vote for Ron Paul, presumably JUST b/c he is against the Iraq War, is an IDIOT and NOT a Democrat. He has said over and over that he would literally shut down the Department of Education, the EPA, the FDA, Dept of Energy, IRS, etc etc. If that's what you want, you are a Libertarian (or an anarchist) and NOT a Democrat, so if that's the case, go post on a Libertarian board or go troll somewhere else. Believe me, I admire his anti-War sentiment, but en total he is a fucking fruitcake nutso wingbat just like all the other Rs/Libertarians. It is astounding that anyone who would post on C&L doesn't know that by now.

Safire has a severe case of combover reasoning.

Jeff Cohen @ 105:

So AIPAC/neocon Safire picks AIPAC/neocon Rahm for VP. Or Feinstein (no neocon, but Jewish).
The guy is senile. Next week JACKIE MASON on how to deal with Iran.

If by neocon you mean hawk to protect Israel, yes, Feinstein is a Neocon.

Forget Feinstein. Obama should pick Boxer!

His predictions are clearly more of what he wishes would happen, rather than what he thinks will happen. His agenda here is clear: put out some ultra pro-Israel names for VP. He knows those two were never even considered by Clinton or Obama, but by simply naming them he has technically helped their chances of getting picked. But one must never underestimate the neocons power. After, Gore picked Lieberman. Why ugly, war hawk Lieberman???

I hope that when the voters get a chance to vote, assuming that the primaries aren't rigged, that all of these pundits will be forced to stop cheerleading for the corporatist ticket.

assuming that the primaries aren’t rigged

That's the rub.

But assuming they're not, then I think we're in good shape. As long as democrats select one of: Biden, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel, we'll be okay.

If we end up w/ Kucinich, then it's just gravy. But if we end up with Hillary...

If Clinton wins she'll choose Wes Clark as her running mate.

Hillary should pick between Biden, Webb, and Obama. Since Obama's sending the attack dogs in the next few weeks, it'll prolly be Webb (the new anti-war face in the party; pleasant debating skills) or Biden (good guy; gets all ruddy-faced when he's mad). Since Virginia of all states picked Webb, maybe he'll go over enough in the south and midwest to warrant the choice.

DiFi would make a superlative Vice President. It's not a policy-making position, but rather one requiring preparedness in the event the president is unable to serve. She performed that role dramatically well previously, when as SF City Council President, Feinstein had to gain control of a chaotic situation in which the mayor and an immensely popular city councilman were gunned down by another councilman. Her dramatic statement on the steps of city hall, in the immediate aftermath of the bizarre bloodshed, goes down in history as a display of steel nerves.

Some of us may have problems with some of her votes and positions over the years, but she remains a very progressive figure when placed on the mainstream American political spectrum (as opposed to being a Blue Dog or conservative Dem).

And in a presidential term likely to align with terror attacks, I'd feel very good with DiFi waiting in the wings. She's like a Roman Empress ready to spring in a time of terror and confusion.

Obama/Feinstein? I'd kill myself!! Senility obviously isn't pretty..

HootieMcBoob @ 138:

If Clinton wins she'll choose Wes Clark as her running mate.

I think Webb or Clark would be excellent choices.

Also, get real people no way does Emmanuel get the VP nod.

Indigowatcher @ 143:

You're joking, right?

What an amateurish and cliched response. While your unlettered mind tosses out that kind of gibberish, you conveniently avoid addressing a single word of what I actually did state (nary a punch line in sight, in the event you require that clarification).

I am a bit more liberal than Feinstein. I certainly appreciate the differences that many of us have with some of her positions and actions at different points in her political career (and those pre-date her tenure as a U.S. Senator).

But politics is the art of the possible. I'm not interested in jumping on your utopian joy ride to defeat in '08. Depending upon the lead nominee, we may need a Veep who is a bit older, with a very long track record, and one who has shown nerves of steel in a crisis. This would be a particularly good balance if Obama were to somehow upset Clinton for the nomination. And that balance could be found in Feinstein.

Veeps balance a ticket. That's political reality. I understand you want a four-party nation with all sorts of ideological purity here and there. Good luck with that.

Oh no. Crooks and Liars is being taken over by DLC corporatist Fascist-light people who support Israel's "apartheid" regime.