Slick Hillary: Covering Up the Trail

[Al122]

Abraham Lincoln was reputed to have once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time." And that certainly seems to have been Senator Hillary Clinton's intention with her scripted, stage managed dressing down of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week.

Well Mrs. Clinton, Lincoln also said that "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out today Mrs. Clinton is, yet again, trying to have it both ways. According to Herbert, a couple of months ago she told a Washington gathering:

"I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open ended committment which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government,"

and then added:

"Nor do I think it is a smart strategy to set a date certain."

Come again? Can you tell us Mrs. C what you think a smart strategy in Iraq would be or is the real strategy just to save your own political posterior as 2008 approaches?

Today, Bob Herbert reminds us that "Mrs. Clinton is one of the many supporters of the war who should have known better from the beginning." In the fall of 2002, then Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Bob Graham was shocked to find out that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed to the U.S. by Iraq (see John Walsh, What Did the Democrats Know and When Did They Know It? The Lies of John Edwards at http://www.counterpunch.org/...). Graham ordered CIA Director George Tenet to produce a classified NIE which was so full of holes that Graham and four other Democrats on the Intel Committee (Sens Durbin, Levin, Mikulski and Wyden) all voted against the use of force resolution. There were 23 Senate votes against the war including the five from Intel Committee Democrats. If the five other Dems on that committee (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller)had voted "No" that would have brought the total to 28. It would have taken only five more votes to sustain a veto against the war. Senator Clinton could easily have been one of those votes. She could have helped to spared us from the humiliating, costly and unecessary disaster that Iraq has become.

It is this weakness on the part of Mrs. Clinton, at a moment when her country needed her most, that is one big reason why 40,000 New York Democrats signed a petition to get Jonathan Tasini on the ballot and why according to the most recent Marist poll, 13% of us intend to vote for him on September 12.

Here's what Jonathan Tasini had to say about Mrs. Clinton's recent statements:

"My opponent is getting much attention for her criticism of Donald Rumsfeld yesterday. But it's just more bluster from Sen. Clinton. If you're a Senator who voted to authorize the invasion, who has continually supported the war and occupation, has continually voted for war funding, has continually undercut fellow Congressional Democrats (like John Murtha) when they move to extricate our country from the Iraq disaster, then she should not be allowed to get away with pointing fingers at others.

If there was and is an efficient way to prosecute this war, Clinton owes it to the American public to spell that out. If she could have prosecuted the war effectively, why didn't she lay out her plan all these years? Until she gets specific, citizens should view yesterday's confrontation with Mr. Rumsfeld as little more than politics on Sen. Clinton's part."

Let's face it: Most Americans view the war that Sen. Clinton supported and supports as a mistake. It isn't about how effective the war was prosecuted. It is entirely about this having been an illegal and immoral war that has cost our country dearly--and Sen. Clinton is trying to obscure her record by shifting the focus to Rumsfeld. Most people want a timetable for withdrawal. She does not and has repeatedly voted for prolonging the war, and the many deaths the war continues to cause. All the verbal acrobatics about Rumsfeld's failures should not obscure the fact that Sen. Clinton has been wrong on the war all along, especially in her undermining of fellow Democrats who want to reverse course. She remains wrong today, despite her theatrics yesterday."

Well there you have it. The distinctions between Clinton and Tasini's approach to this key issue, as well as on many others, couldn't be clearer. Statistically significant numbers of New Yorkers have chosen to support Jonathan Tasini. There couldn't be a better argument for a primary in New York.

Oh, and it would also be nice if NY1, which gets its cable franchise from the people of New York, would rescind its recently imposed $500,000 contribution level criteria and let Jonathan join its upcoming "Town Hall" debate too. If you haven't done so already contact Robert Hardt, NY1's political director at 212-379-3330 or [e-mail] and let him know how you feel about this blatant attempt to muzzle Tasini's message.

Al Ronzoni, Jr.

[MercutioATC]

1. K&R

Her words don't coincide with her actions .

Her actions speak clearly enough for me. She's exactly the type of "DLC Darling" that we're trying to oust, the occasional "liberal" soundbite notwithstanding.

[AJH032]

20. her actions?

You mean her votes that make her one of the most liberal senators in that chamber? Or are you referring to another action?

[LittleClarkie]

2. Does Bob link to Counterpunch, or was that you?

Just wondering.

[NYCGirl]

5. I don't think Bob Herbert would link to Counterpunch — I believe that's

the OPs call.

[LittleClarkie]

7. I didn't think so either

I have to say that CounterPunch makes my teeth itch, however. Almost none of our Dems passed their purity test in 2004. They only barely liked Dennis.

[NYCGirl]

10. LOL! I have an allergic reaction to their quest for absolute purity, too.

[Cocoa]

44. they smeared Paul Wellstone

Counterpunch is a rag, imo.

[LittleClarkie]

47. You're kidding. That's a new one on me.

Yes, yes they are.

[Cocoa]

48. it was repulsive

and took a very familiar form. I see lies of this type every day against the dems. Pure fakery.

Here's the original smear article and their disgustingly juvenile and dishonest "retraction." :puke:

http://www.counterpunch.org/sperry0711.html

<snip>

And once again we must ask, where the hell is Paul Wellstone? (Or, for that matter, his protégé in public obscurity, Mark Dayton?) I have pawed in vain through Wellstone's website, the Congressional Record, and various news archives to find any discouraging word on the corporate crime wave. Maybe he is afraid of drawing more wrath and more Republican dollars in his race against Norm Coleman; maybe he is being Senatorial, nattering privately and uselessly to his party superiors about the issue; maybe he is just too busy fighting mostly losing battles in the Agriculture committee and rescuing kittens from trees in Willmar. Or perhaps he is awaiting word that one of the CEOs under investigation has snapped and struck his wife-Paul and Sheila are adamantly opposed to domestic violence, you know.

One thing's for damn sure: In this most pungent domestic scandal of the past few decades, the man The Nation once called "the senator from the Left" is nowhere in sight. By staying on the sidelines this way, Wellstone is both shirking a duty incumbent to his populist pretensions and missing a golden political opportunity. About a year and a half ago, in the pages of Mother Jones, I went on record with the observation that if Wellstone broke his two-terms-and-out pledge to run again, he would probably lose. But with fresh financial scandals breaking every week, the ground under our feet has moved considerably since then in ways that should only benefit Wellstone. Is there a political candidate anywhere this year who, as a matter of style and presence, embodies the toothsome, glad-handing, reptilian ethos of corporate America any better than Norm Coleman? Yet Wellstone manages to continue running neck-and-neck with him. Quite a feat when you think about it.

Yes, yes: Wellstone has done some admirable things in the Senate, Wellstone is palpably better than the inveterate lizard he's running against, blah blah blah. But if he continues to abstain from action and comment on the most pressing domestic matter of the day-he could, at minimum, lead the charge in demanding hearings regarding Bush/Harken and Cheney/Halliburton-he may still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And if that happens he had better not whine about the White House or the Republican National Committee or the invisible Green candidacy of Ed McGaa, because he will have only himself to blame.




http://www.counterpunch.org/sperry0813.html

<snip>

AFTER LAST MONTH'S column on Paul Wellstone's silence concerning the business scandals, I got a testy email from a Wellstone staffer, larded with press release attachments that demonstrated the senator's fierce and fearless leadership. Wellstone has spoken against corporate abuses on the Senate floor, I was informed, not once but twice-and, more impressive still, he spoke forcefully each time.

Naturally I felt mortified at my own hubris. Who was I to criticize Wellstone's leadership just because I hadn't heard a peep about it myself? Had I scoured the full menu of his press releases? Had I pored over member comments on the Senate floor? No. But in my own paltry way I did try. I looked at various news archives and Wellstone's own Senate website. Before its content was frozen by election rules round about early July, it contained no word about corporate accountability that I could find, not even one of the press releases-each surely more forceful than the last!-that are the sine qua non of his leadership. All I can say is that I'm sorry, Paul, and in the future I'll bear in mind that the mere fact of being invisible doesn't make you any less a leader.

Now, in mid-August, Wellstone's campaign website is screaming boardroom larceny front and center. Lovely. Better late than never, and better a little than nothing at all: That's the central refrain of Wellstone's Senate career and the only credible slogan on behalf of his re-election campaign. I'll still vote for him if I vote at all, but I won't venture out just to pull the lever for Paul. And in that I doubt I'm alone.

The other day I spoke with Bill Hillsman, the political ad consultant who played a vital role in electing Wellstone the first time. "I was thinking about some of the ads we just murdered Boschwitz with in '90," Hillsman smiled ruefully, "the print ads where we talked about his being in the Senate for 12 years and never getting anything done. And I thought to myself, good Lord, what would happen if someone did that same ad now with respect to Wellstone's record? It would probably be no better, maybe in some cases worse."

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. Those disgusting fucks

I am bookmarking this so I can throw it in the face of any bastard who dares try to use Counterpuke to smear Dems... thanx

[elehhhhna]

3. She's Lieberman in a dress.

[mtnsnake]

11. brilliant

[Nederland]

29. yes, brilliant

...and I LOVE that sig graphic.

[mtnsnake]

31. Yeah, real brilliant, except for one thing

It's not true.

The divisive labels flow faster than a waterfall, and the rumor mill is alive and well!

[Nederland]

34. I stand corrected

She's Lieberman in a pantsuit.

How silly of me...

[elehhhhna]

55. HARDEE HAR HAR!!!!! Good one.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I'm sure Hillary is shaking in her boots at 79% to 13%.

Intelligent people see their world in other than black and white. There is no inconsistency in Hillary's views on Iraq. Most of us disagree with her, but that doesn't seem to be enough for some who are incapable of mustering the common courtesy to disagree respectfully. Instead they attach all sorts of nefarious or narcissistic connotations to her position on Iraq. Dirty politics from within (and outside) the party's rank and file serves no one's interests.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

6. If it is Monday then it must be time to knock Hillary.

Just like the repugs, some people here make this a full time entertainment and/or mission. Hillary is DUs own personal pinata.

You can depend on at least a half a dozen threads a week on how awful Hillary is, how they would never vote for her, how she is a Dem in name only. All I care about right now is that she is a Dem, she is sailing to another victory so her seat will retain its D designation and she hasn't announced if she is running for president or not. We have SO much more on our plate then to worry about Hillary today. How much of the fascination with Hillary around here is in direct result of the neocons poking a stick in the cage just to see the animals growl? Jeeze.

[SaveElmer]

8. Half a dozen?

I think that's lowballing it quite a bit...

Hillary has a more progressivve voting record than about 80% of Senate Democrats...about the same number as Russ Feingold...

And yet...as always...she is the one focus of attention (except Lieberman)

[MODemocrat]

41. They're probably afraid of a strong woman

I don't believe in eating my own, so my support goes to Hillary 100% if she's nominated.

[AtomicKitten]

13. crap, I forgot

First Monday of the month.

I was supposed to bring chips ...

[AZBlue]

14. Don't worry - I got them!

When I picked up the beer!!

:beer:

[AtomicKitten]

15. no shooters!

this is what happened the last time ...

[ronnykmarshall]

25. Only Monday?

It seems like every day is bash Hillary day.

She could cure cancer and still be the great satan of DU.

[sgxnk]

21. aboslutely

but that's the far left meme

supporting the iraq invasion (which she did do undeniably) means one is a "neocon"


that of course is absurd

it's as dumb as rightwingers saying that bill clinton was a liberal

but it gets traction nonetheless

if u can't pass that ole purity test yer a "neocon"

[oasis]

9. Scolding Rummy........ baaaaad.

Naughty Hillary. :spank:

[mtnsnake]

12. This thread shows the desperation of the Tasini hopefuls. LOL

You have no hope what so ever of beating her. She's been a fantastic NYS Senator and Tasini might as well spend his money on a good book.

[AZBlue]

16. Just another (*yawn*) anti-Hillary rant without any basis.

It reminds me of high school - you know, when you had an essay question on a topic you had NO CLUE about? Pages written on a topic you know nothing about with absolutely no basis or facts given.

My favorite line is this: "Well there you have it. The distinctions between Clinton and Tasini's approach to this key issue, as well as on many others, couldn't be clearer." Um, yeah, clear as mud, since no explanation or information is given about Tasini - but I guess that's not important when you just want to rant against someone instead of give information for something? Silly me.

[Al122]

18. The distinction between Clinton and Tasini on the war is crystal clear

From reading my post. If you really cared what his positions were on other issues it's just a quick point and click to get to his website www.tasinifornewyork.org. Ahh the wonders of the modern world!

It's very easy to rant like you are that I have "no clue" about what I'm talking about while failing to address a single substantive point made in the post. Why don't you comment on the FACT that 5 Dems on the Intel Committee, including the Chairman, voted against the war while 5 others who had access to the same NIE voted yes.

Why are so many of you afraid of facing the truth about your own party? Look where the party is compared to where it was before Clinton became president. It's become nothing more than window dressing for the Republicans. Its allowed 2 presidential elections to be blatantly stolen out from under it because it lacks the balls to stand up and fight for what's right. That is not the fault of those of us on what you mischaracterize as the "purist left." The Clintons, DLC and their corporate backers have been in the driver's seat all these years.

Look where it has gotten us.

[AZBlue]

22. What's the focus here? Tasini? Clinton? NIE? Stolen elections? HUH??

The 5 dems on Intel committee - what does that have to do with Tasini? You're just all over the place. MY post was regarding the claim in your OP that you gave the crystal clear differences between Tasini and Clinton, when in fact it gave none because you gave no points about Tasini and you're only now giving us his website. No, I don't have time to look up his webpage - if it's sooooo important you should have given it to me originally.

(As for the Dem party being responsible for two elections being stolen - they did play a part. But, it really boils down to a completely non-partisan issue: the people of this country didn't care enough. Stop using the Dem party as a scapegoat and face the real problem.)

And, can we just have one discussion at a time - I've heard of mutli-tasking, but this is absurd.

[MrBenchley]

23. Yeah, notbody cares what that obscure whacko has to say on the war

or any other subject.....

"Why are so many of you afraid of facing the truth about your own party?"
Because those trying to tell us "the truth" are so far out of touch with reality that they think an obscure whacko is the cat's ass?

[Democrat 4 Ever]

40. Hillary Clinton is not the she devil you and Tansini wish she were.

She has been an excellent Senator - much smarter than other 99 Senators occupying DC right now, knows the ropes, informed on issues and can take on anybody on any subject. She is smart, she doesn't run from a fight and I would take Hillary or Bill for two more terms any time, anywhere. They were vilified for eight damn years and they came out smelling like roses no matter what was thrown at them. I like the fighter in the woman. And I'm pretty sure there are about 85% of New Yorkers that agree with me.

Now will I vote for her in the primary for Dem candidate in 2008? Right now, I have to see the field, weigh the candidates (right now I'm a Clarkie or a Gore fan) before I cast that primary vote. But if she ends up being the Democratic candidate in 2008 she will gladly has my vote (I think KKKarl, Norquist and Newt are counting on her more than the Democratic party is - they are practically wetting their pants they want her to be the Dem candidate so bad - after all, they have years of experience smearing her in the press.).

I do not like Hillary's position on the war but I really feel she will see the error of her ways. I gave up looking for the perfect candidate for all issues at all times a long time ago.

Your guy is too far behind to even dream of catching up now, why not take the summer off, donate some money to your favorite charity, buy a round of beers at the local watering hole, save yourself some shoe leather, chill out and have some fun - Hillary will be representing New York, again, come 2007. And I say Yea.

Can ya tell I'm really tired of the Hillary bashing threads?

[4_TN_TITANS]

17. I brought the 'Hillary Sucks' party hats.....

}(

Personally, I glad she is such a distraction for the media and rightwingers. Whether she wants to or not, she's always taking one for the team. Of course she won't make it past the primaries for 2008, but they don't have to know that. <<<< shhhhh >>>>>>

[Doctor_J]

19. Why aren't our few media reps piling on Rumsfeld instead of

Hillary? Or is this just a chance for the Tasini "true believers" to get a little limelight?

[Nederland]

24. Classic Hillary double-speak

"I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open ended committment which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart strategy to set a date certain."

Ok, so you are against an open ended commitment and against setting a withdrawl date.

What position is left exactly?

[AtomicKitten]

26. not double-speak at all

I'm sorry you are incapable of discerning the difference

[Nederland]

28. You are right

I'm a little slow, so please help me. If you are opposed to open ended committment AND opposed to setting a date certain, what exactly are you in favor of? I suppose you could say that you are in favor of staying in Iraq until the Iraqis are capable of standing on their own, but that sounds pretty much like, oh, who is that guy again?

Oh yeah, that sounds like Bush's position.

[AtomicKitten]

30. it's really not that difficult to comprehend, if you want to that is

She's concerned about withdrawal too quickly which is a legitimate concern, although IMO collapse of Iraq is inevitable. Whether or not you agree with her, there are definite logistics to consider that you are completely ignoring.

Her position is far from Bush's (to say the least), but I guess if you start out hating her and her opinion doesn't match yours, there is nothing much she could do to please you anyway.

On edit: Plus I heard she puts babies on spikes.

[Nederland]

32. Ok

So I understand that you think her position is far from Bush's.

What is her position on the war exactly?

More importantly, why is it that you, like her, seem to be so intent on avoiding a direct answer to the question?

[AtomicKitten]

33. listen, buster, I answered your question about withdrawal from Iraq

Now you're presenting an entirely new question and accusing me of not answering it.

I'm not interested in your little reindeer games.

[Nederland]

35. Did you now?

Let's review ALL your sentences so far:

1) not double-speak at all
2) I'm sorry you are incapable of discerning the difference
3) it's really not that difficult to comprehend, if you want to that is
4) She's concerned about withdrawal too quickly which is a legitimate concern, although IMO collapse of Iraq is inevitable.
5) Whether or not you agree with her, there are definite logistics to consider that you are completely ignoring.
6) Her position is far from Bush's (to say the least), but I guess if you start out hating her and her opinion doesn't match yours, there is nothing much she could do to please you anyway.
7) On edit: Plus I heard she puts babies on spikes.


Ok, so which sentence of yours describes her position on the war?

[AtomicKitten]

36. OK, here you go.

your question: "I'm a little slow, so please help me. If you are opposed to open ended commitment AND opposed to setting a date certain, what exactly are you in favor of? I suppose you could say that you are in favor of staying in Iraq until the Iraqis are capable of standing on their own, but that sounds pretty much like, oh, who is that guy again?"

my answer: "She's concerned about withdrawal too quickly which is a legitimate concern, although IMO collapse of Iraq is inevitable. Whether or not you agree with her, there are definite logistics to consider that you are completely ignoring."

Your question was specifically about withdrawal from Iraq. You saw no daylight between an open-ended commitment and not setting a specific date for withdrawal. I pointed out that she has legitimate concerns regarding the logistics of a too quick withdrawal, and most scholars agree Iraq will collapse into full-on civil war (although as I pointed out, IMO that is inevitable).

There are nuances to her opinion that you are ignoring. She has to deal with contemplating the risks and benefits of a set-in-stone date for withdrawal. You on the other hand are pontificating from the safety of your computer.

I answered your question regarding withdrawal, you ignored me, re-upped with a broader, much more general question of her "position on the war," and then accused me of not answering a question you had not asked.

Your attempt to manipulate the actual course of our conversation was really lame.

We're done.

[Nederland]

57. Fair Enough

I guess I would reiterate my observation that her position on withdrawal and George Bush's are essentially the same. Both refuse to set a timetable for withdrawal and insist that a certain set of conditions exist before withdrawal begins. Admittedly, there are probably small, or as you would say, nuanced, differences between hers position and Bush's. There in lies the problem IMHO. Small, nuanced positional differences didn't serve John Kerry very well in 2004 and I doubt very much if it will serve us well again in 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

58. BushCo has set things up

such that his expectation is somebody else will clean up his mess in Iraq. He said so himself. I resent the fact that that is precisely what the Democrats will be faced with in 2008.

Look, I don't want Hillary to be the nominee in 2008 either, but I have a problem with people purposely comparing her with Bush or even Lieberman. IMO she's being a hardass because she's a girl and needs to prove her street creds to the military types. It's bullshit but I can muster enough fairness to understand it.

Kerry came across an elitist wuss (sorry Kerry fans) in 2004 with an uber-nuanced opinion on Iraq. People don't want to hear that nonsense. They want to hear a clear, concise, forthright declaration of a plan to get the hell out of Iraq.

The difference between us is that I don't begrudge Hillary being cautious (for a myriad of reasons) because there is no easy answer. I don't agree with her but I don't think she's a warmonger or any other of the charming attributions given her gratuitously by some here at DU.

I just don't get the seething hatred for her. I don't think it's fair. It's perfectly okay to prefer another contender for 2008 without completely annihilating another one. The scorched earth rhetoric here at DU gets on my last nerve sometimes and I have days where I just go off. If I got some on you yesterday, I apologize.

[mtnsnake]

42. You really do like pulling strings, eh,

"buster"?

[readmoreoften]

27. $500,000 contribution to join the televised political debate???

Yes, Tasini will lose because he isn't independently wealthy and we'll be stuck with this wishy-washy DLC prop. Oh and Murdock isn't donating to his campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

37. plus

the earth is flat
you can get pregnant from a toilet seat
swallowed gum will stay in your stomach for 7 years
consuming pop rocks and soda will kill you
there are alligators in the sewers

[readmoreoften]

38. How about not being snotty and disproving the post instead?

It says that NY1 news channel imposes a $500,000 fee to participate. If you'd like to disprove this please feel free to debunk. I'd love it if it weren't true. Knock yourself out.

[AtomicKitten]

39. I'm being snotty

to illustrate your inconsistency.

It seems Lamont's gazillionaire status seems to not be an issue.

Consistency, people. It makes one's POV reasonable.

[readmoreoften]

43. Inconsistency about Lamont? I didn't even mention Lamont or the CT race.

I never said that I was comfortable with the fact that Lamont is a multimillionaire. I'm a labor activist, his wealth concerns me for a number of reasons.

Anymore "inconsistencies" you'd like to point out in two sentence post or are we done here?

[AtomicKitten]

45. I was commenting on your complaints about $$$$.

Your "concern" for Lamont's wad doesn't seem to match your contempt for the $$$ requirement in the debate process in NY.

Inconsistency in outrage is hypocritical any way you slice it.

Have a nice evening.

[readmoreoften]

51. And the baseless and irrational character assassination continues...

How do you know whether my "contempt" for a NY television channel that fleeces candidates for $500,000 just to enter a debate "matches" my concern about the values of a CT candidate who is extremely wealthy? Are you a Wiccan empath who can send out telepathic waves through the fiber optic cables and reach right into my unspoken thoughts and feelings? Or are you just an unpleasant person who assassinates the character of anyone who you sense my not support your views 100%?

Hey, if you have a little extra time, you might want to attack my character on the Israel/Palestinian conflict or lecture me about how I'm not doing enough in the fight for safe abortions.

Or maybe you could take a deep breath and tone down your rhetoric.

'Nite.

[AtomicKitten]

52. ouch

"Yes, Tasini will lose because he isn't independently wealthy and we'll be stuck with this wishy-washy DLC prop. Oh and Murdock isn't donating to his campaign."

Indeed your rhetoric is the epitome of reason.

[readmoreoften]

53. Yes, my post was a jab at Clinton. But it wasn't a jab at YOU.

And there is nothing "unreasonable" about taking a potshot at a politican. So someone isn't as thrilled with your candidate as you are? Get over it.

There is something UNREASONABLE AND IRRATIONAL about making absurd allegations about other posters on topics they aren't even discussing.

But I'm sure you won't let this be the last post. You're going to continue this with some "nasty smilie" filled flame just so you can get the "last word" in. Let me suggest an "eyeroll"-- that's always a goodie. Or the "violin" smilie. A little off topic, but you don't seem to mind that.

Go ahead. Last word. I'm all eyes.

[AtomicKitten]

54. ok, view up

your claim - "Yes, Tasini will lose because he isn't independently wealthy ... - is patently absurd. He's biting it in the polls and will lose because he's a lousy candidate.

Lamont on the other hand is a great candidate and has run an excellent campaign. I am pleased to say he will probably win tomorrow.

Neither outcome will be because of money or lack thereof.

And, hate to break it to you, but your theory of candidate protection is moot. I support Al Gore and will not vote for anyone in the primary that voted yes on the IWR.

If I offended you with my sarcasm, I apologize; I should have just responded in a straightforward fashion. I'm just in a mood today.

Going to bed now. Really. Goodnight.

[Lindacooks]

46. I am thoroughly sick and tired of Democrats blaming the Iraq War

on other Democrats.

This belongs to Bush/Cheney.

Period.

[Vidar]

50. I like Hillary--where she's at. Let's keep her there.

[OzarkDem]

56. Welcome to DU!

:hi: