Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Barack Obama: Putting Meat on the Bone

For the first few months of his presidential candidacy, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was criticized for being all rhetoric and no depth. His rivals took subtle jabs at him for the lightness of the campaign, insisting that "hope" was not a policy.

No longer.

On Wednesday Obama rolled out what his campaign called a "comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism", a plan that includes removing American troops from Iraq, the deployment of at least two more brigades to Afghanistan, increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion and creating "Mobile Development Teams" designed to tamp down the strains of extremism around the world. (You can -- and should -- read the full speech here.)

Obama's terrorism speech Wednesday is part of a series of other policy addresses/proposals that he has made in recent weeks. He outlined his lobbying reform plan at the end of June and roughly a month earlier outlined his proposal to solve the health care crisis in America.

Taken in total, Obama has addressed the top foreign and domestic policy issues of the day as well as his own signature issue in a the space of three months. Remember that, unlike the political junkies who traffic on this site, many voters -- even in Iowa and New Hampshire -- are just now tuning in to the campaign and are likely unaware that there was ever a sense that Obama was light on policy proposals. What they're likely to see now is a candidate with some policy heft to back up his personal appeal.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), on the other hand, has offered fewer comprehensive proposals -- choosing instead to put forth pieces of her broader outlines on energy, the economy and health care.

That's not to say Clinton has been light on specifics. Her campaign is quick to note that Clinton, alone among the Democratic frontrunners, has laid out a comprehensive strategy to get America out of Iraq; she has also sent a DVD mailer to Iowa caucus goers explaining her three point-plan. They also point out that she has detailed her ideas on government reform, innovation, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, subprime loans and the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast among other issues.

Still, on health care, the dominant domestic issue today in America, Clinton has pointedly refused to propose a comprehensive plan -- insisting that costs need to be reduced and the system studied for inefficiencies first.

"I am looking for answers that will not have us spend more money," Clinton said back in February. "I am convinced we can do that." In speeches, debate and other public forums, Clinton regularly refers to the "scars" she bears as a result of her unsuccessful battle to reform health care in the 1990s -- a signal to voters that she's been there, done that, and knows that solutions are not as easy as simply putting out a plan. (I wrote a piece on Clinton preaching the politics of the possible earlier this year.)

The policy strategies of the two frontrunning candidates fit the sort of campaigns they believe they need to run.

For Obama that means proving to voters that there is policy behind his polish, that he is more than just a pretty face. Creating a policy palette for himself is an attempt by Obama to counter the criticism that he is not experienced enough after just two years in the Senate to lead the nation at the critical time.

Clinton, by contrast faces few doubts about her experience in office and her ability to engage at the highest levels on policy matters. She has been in the public eye for most of the past three decades so rolling out a series of comprehensive policy proposals could well be overkill.

Her primary task between now and next January is to re-introduce herself to voters on a more personal level -- showing that she is a person who is able to understand and empathize with the worries and hopes of average Americans. That connection has some to do with the sort of policies she advocates but far more to do with how she is perceived as a person.

While Clinton and Obama occasionally clash -- witness the days-long fracas over who had the better foreign policy credentials last week -- they are still really running on parallel tracks. Obama has the sizzle but needs some steak; Clinton needs the reverse.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 2, 2007; 12:02 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House Republicans Make Attempt at Playing Offense
Next: VIDEO: Handicapping Campaign 2008


Osama is believed to be hiding somewhere in the southern regions of pakistan

Barack Obama says as President, he will, given credible intel order military strikes against Al-Qaeda elements.....hmmmmmn I wonder why he is taking so much heat for this. ISN'T THIS WHAT BUSH WAS SUPPOSED TO DO?????

And for the ill-educated idiots out there, 'military strikes' do not necessarily mean an could be tactical missile strikes, small teams of covert forces or even just sending in a drone. Too many idiots out there would make it seem that Obama is ready to invade another country. WRONG!!!

my $0.02

Posted by: Ahmed Faried | August 4, 2007 1:10 AM | Report abuse

To the ignorant people who keep repeating the 'his not experienced' rhetoric ,please go and read his well thought out plan on keeping terrorist at bay before coming here to display your ignorance. I live amongst you and I know majority of you do not even have passports just incase you might have to see the real world .Calling Obama naive, is like saying Bush is intelligent.Atleast he has studied about the world enough not to stick to one source of information. He schooled in Indonesia and like many of us who got the privilege of living in the developing world, he knows not all Muslims are radicals. Lets get back to Pakistan, a nation with 70% moderate Muslims, like most majority Muslim countries is hijacked by radical extremist minorities. Senator Obama said he is willing to work with Musharaff to take out Al- Qaeda and 9-11 mastermind Bin laden ,reining in control of the dispersed autonomous northern tribes who are harboring terrorist .This will also help Afghanistan take care of the insurgence by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants hiding in the mountainous borders of the Pakistan Afghan border. The pragmatic thing after 9-11 which Bush ignored was to pressure Pakistan to allow special forces in those regions to hunt down Al-Qaeda remnants, this current administration failed to do this because it did not benefit corporate profiteering ; making Afghanistan and Pakistan's volatile northern regions safe for the World in general. With the support of Hillary Clinton ,who with clearly laid out false intelligence, knowledge of the history of the middle east and experience in being first lady during her husbands two year term voted to give Mr. Bush the mandate to invade Iraq. Thus living Afghanistan and Pakistan which should have been our main focus to Bin laden and his cohorts to taunt the world with their periodical release of videos reminding us of their invincibility.

It is clear CNN and the Clinton spin media are doing all they can to smear Obama, the mostly ignorant and gullible Americans who can't read for themselves but take everything the media puts out as the truth, get on the internet to spew their pitiful sagacity with a few sentences they write because they have nothing else to hit the most promising Leader America will be lucky to have as president in a while. I'm glad there some Americans who see the need for a new leader to bring America back to its glory days, where it was feared and respected by friends and enemies alike.

Nuclear arms is here to stay but the will to use it has been curtailed by humanity. Until these inhumane terrorist started killing innocent people, it was a deterrent to keep the world safe from power hungry dictators and regimes from take over the free world. America has advance technology to counter and neutralize any Nuclear attack on its ally how much more on it's self. For those who don't know there has been so much money spent not on building nuclear pile but defense against nuclear attacks as well. Its the reason the cold war ended because no sane human being was to go end the world by starting a nuclear war which can never be won by any nation. This can't be said of the terrorist who wants to expedite their journey to heaven to be with their beautiful virgins. The US is still strong and a force to reckon with in the world. The world is changing and the US is in the dire need of a president who will be embraced by world . Once again the US have the chance to lead the world, the pacesetters it has always been and Barrack Obama is the one to take it there. Taking the fight on terrorism back to the real terrorist Al-Qaeda which is residing in northern Pakistan presently is not a bad idea. With the support of the UN , allies and corporation with the Pakistan people who wouldn't want to be associated with Bin-Laden and his cohorts, the true fight on terrorism will begin with the safety of the Pakistani and Afghan people at heart.
Feel free to argue constructively after thoroughly reading my post.Thank you .

PS: CNN is deleting comments because we are "keeping them honest" by calling them Clinton spin doctors.We all know who is been paid by the candidates now.I'm starting a campaign against CNN for taking away our right to debate and call on the unfairness of the media towards Barack Obama.Join me.

Excuse my grammatical errors I speak and write 5 languages and english is not my first language so bare with me.

Posted by: benny_oops | August 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson is the candidate Clinton and Obama are trying to depict themselves as. Neither Obama or Clinton have the experience or know-how to deal with the issues facing our country.

"Anybody but Bush" didn't work in 04.

"Anybody but a Republican" is not going to work in 08.

Let's run Richardson, our best candidate.

Posted by: John Pikeville Kentucky | August 3, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Senator Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech Wednesday about the policies he would initiate when elected President, domestic and foreign. I watched his presentation on C-SPAN3 yesterday and was impressed by the depth and scope of the issues Senator Obama covered. The man is a student of American politics and will be a tough act to follow.

I sense there are Republican trolls and shills for Senator Hillary Clinton on this blog. They do a pitiful job of misrepresenting Senator Obama's ideas and character. I believe Hillary and the Republicans are afraid of Obama's candidacy - they know Senator Obama is the real deal and is capable of winning the Democratic nomination and the general election in November 2008!

Posted by: Maurice D | August 3, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The US negotiated a treaty with the Barbary States during Washington's administratino that was ratified during Adams' administration. It said (I paraphrase) "The government of the United States of America is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."

Jefferson was Deist or a Unitarian - which implies not believing in the divinity of Christ. He once went through a Bible excising passages he did not believe - that did not leave a lot.

Read Joe Meachum's "American Gospel" - neither the Christian right nor the ACLU would agree with his reasoning.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

"Electing Hillary is electing GEorge Bush"

Aw, c'mon, you sound like a Ralph Nader supporter.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 3, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse


Pick whatever poll that nicely fits your argument and makes you feel happy! ;-)

What about today's Washington Post-ABC News poll that shows Obama leading in Iowa 27% with Clinton and Edwards tied with 26% each. So now Obama is leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina! I'm sure that you are well aware that no presidential candidate has ever won the first three primary and not won their respective party's nomination right?

The Clinton camp is well aware that Obama is a very serious threat; thus the reason why she's out attacking Obama at every opportunity. Her campaign is in trouble and she knows it. No one is buying the "the most experienced and ready to lead" nonsense. Hillary has no experience. Hillary was arrogant from the start. She thought that she was the heir apparent and the hands down choice to become our next president. She was mistaken and will certainly not become the democrat nominee.

Hillary has half the black and women vote and yet she still continues to lose ground to Obama in every state. It's unbelievable! I think Hillary has underestimated the following issues in her campaign.

(1) She does not have any experience (foreign or domestic) and her continued insistent that she does has put off the voting public;
(2) As a Senator she has a poor record with essentially no sponsored bills of note;
(3) She is cold, mean, vindictive and divisive - partisan politics will bring Washington to a screeching halt;
(4) She's has no detailed comprehensive health plan - in fact, she's in the pocket of the health care industry and America knows it;
(5) America is not ready for a women president and a lot of men will not vote for her no matter what;
(6) Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky;
(7) White water
(8) Travelgate
(9) Vince Foster
(10) America is not ready for a "open marriage" in the White House - everyone knows that the Clintons are married in name only.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Sarah [and Mike] - The Supremes have never HELD that this is a "Christian" nation, that I can recall. Two old immigration cases dealing with ministers that churches brought in from Europe have dicta calling this a "Christian" nation. I do not remember those cases well enough to cite them - but I think one let the minister stay, reasoning that the restriction on laborers did not apply to ministers in the late 19th century. Mike, if you have cites, I'll go back and read them.

In the 70s, the Supremes said that a town could allow a creche in the park or downtown square for Christmas without violating the Establishment Clause. That may have been the case in which Burger called Jesus an American folk hero Christmas an American folk holiday or some such and Brennan criticized him for sounding like the Justice in one of the old minister immigration cases. The time Burger said that, whether it was in the creche case or not, p.o.'d the ministers I knew as trivializing Christianity even 'though a church had won the creche case. I could be confusing two cases and I have not had coffee yet.

Its been a long time since I read this stuff, but I am pretty clear that all of these[very few]references to "Christian" nation are obiter dicta and never HOLDINGS.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 3, 2007 6:14 AM | Report abuse

I'm naive, huh pink? Hillary is mor eof the same. She is part of the yale plan. You people have had your time. Look at the republican rule of the last 40 years. If you want to continue that, it's your business.

In my opinion they have lead this country into corporate slavery. They have destroyed everything our people have build over all these years. And for what? People are always talking about the culture of washington, or how much they hate politics and politics. It's the same as non-christians hating the church. It's not Jesus's fault the chruch he made has strayed so for. It's not his fault his church is no longer christian.

What has happened to this country has been a process. I don't mean to point fingers. Everythin is not Bush's fault. Soem of the problems HAVE been going on for years. Guess what though, pink. Play time is over. The politcal games are leading to the murder of innocents. Play time is over. It has all spilled over.

Electing Hillary is electing GEorge Bush. The time for change is now.

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 3, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

roo, you are probably right on the Pledge - I was recalling the Jehovah's Witnesses cases which held that school kids could not be compelled to say it if it violated their religious belief.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 2, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Barack nos what he is talking about in his foreign policy speech. Remember the guy Constittutional law scholar. So when the president take office they swear under oath to protect and act to protect, defend the constitution which in turn defined everything else. So if the president is brief about any treats against the country he must act to defend and protect. What we hoping for however in an Obama admistration is that he would exercise great judgment, courage and creativity to resolve those problems and even attack the problem(s) before they reach unmanageable proportion. Like they he will work with everyone to kill the monster while it is small. This is what I derived from the speech.

Posted by: Bien-Aime | August 2, 2007 11:33 PM | Report abuse

roo: I think you may be referring to the "Pledge", as to the flag, and not the one taken as the oath of office all elected US office holders take and to become a citizen the "Oath" is simular as to The Constitution.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

bsimon--"I have to say, having now read the full Obama speech to which Chris links above, he says pretty much the same things I've been saying for years. Further, those that pull the excerpt about taking out aQ leadership in Pakistan and claiming it means an invasion of that country clearly haven't read the full speech."

I absolutely agree. Reading the whole thing it was a fantastic policy speech (well, at least orders of magnitude above the "dem darr eebil thurrists" level of discourse) tarnished only slightly by the tough-talkin' on Pakistan--which I maintain was an unnecessary distraction.

Why? Because, as you have witnessed, that is precisely what the media has been reporting on instead of the real substance of the speech.

It has also given the disingenious right-wing machine something to gripe about (no-one on the right with an ounce of intellectual honesty or self-respect should complain about the policy of invading countries seeking terrorists--even if it were true and in pursuit of actual terrorists instead of Saddam--but those qualities are obviously something few of them are burdened with.)

Posted by: roo | August 2, 2007 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin--

I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that the pledge is required in a naturalisation ceremony as well as in the military?

Posted by: roo | August 2, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Forgot to mention, Rasmussen tends to rate the repubs about 3% higher than the others.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

The American Research Group is not an accredited polling organization according to most observers, so that is why I NEVER take anything they put out seriously and most of the time I don't even look at it. Check NBC/WSJ, Gallop, or Rasmussen and some other respected ones and you will find I am correct, as usual, most of the time.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

August 2, 2007 07:17 PM

--thank you poster, said it all..

Posted by: Frank | August 2, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

'In multiple ways, the government had since declared since then that we are a Christian nation.'

Umm, no. To those great many [millions] who are not, and who were born here -- no. That's not the way we understand it. What we beleive in is 'freedom of religion.' Period. What part of the Constitution do you not understand?

Posted by: Sarah. | August 2, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Mike - I'll try to find the Mansfield book
either in paperback or in the library.

The Courts will not take "In God we Trust" off our coins. "God" will not be dropped from the "Pledge". No one will win an injunction against singing "God Bless America" at a HS football game. There will be and have been advocates for these positions, but they have always lost and always will. Not to worry. Of course, no one can be forced to SAY the Pledge, either.

On the other hand, once we had a 14th Amendment that said

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

it was a losing argument to say Louisiana could establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. To call that "activist" denies the Amendment of meaning - so to a lawyer, it is "restrainist".

There are individual cases where I think a court has not properly drawn the line between "free exercise" and "establishment"
but frankly, if the case gets to the Supremes its already a close one.

As these cases arise, we may get a chance to look at them together.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 2, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

I have to say, having now read the full Obama speech to which Chris links above, he says pretty much the same things I've been saying for years. Further, those that pull the excerpt about taking out aQ leadership in Pakistan and claiming it means an invasion of that country clearly haven't read the full speech. Or even the three paragraphs about Pakistan. What he says makes a lot of sense, both in terms of why the Bush policies of the last 6 1/2 years haven't worked and why his changes would. Lastly, the man speaks with a lot of consistency. If you go back and read the speech he gave about not going into Iraq in 2002, the same reasoning is evident in the foreign policy he outlines in this speech. In that regard, he's more consistent than any of the current front-runners, or 2nd tier candidates. I suspect the more people think about what Obama says, the more they will like what he's saying. Can he deliver? I don't know. But having the right plan is a good start.

Posted by: bsimon | August 2, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink writes:

"Hillary is leading everywhere except Iowa, and most are in the double digit range, while Obama is not leading in a single state, including Illinois, according to all the information I have been able to find."

Lylepink, you're so clueless. According to the latest poll by the American Research Group, Obama is leading Clinton in two of the first three primaries, e.g., New Hampshire, South Carolina. Clinton leads in Iowa. Though on Super Tuesday Obama only leads in Illinois and trails Clinton leads in New York, New Jersey, California and Florida, all of that will surely change once Obama emerges the clear leader after the first three states and builds the necessary momentum into Super Tuesday.

Obama is the de facto leader thus far. He is all anyone is talking about and he is clearly dominating the media coverage and is defining all of the meaningful issues for the other candidates in the field. He made immense gains in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A month ago Hillary had a huge lead and now she trails Obama in two critical early states. This is going to be one great race in '08. I predict a hard fought Democrat battle for the nomination. Who ever is left standing at the end, would have earned it the hard way. Either way you slice it Obama - Clinton or Clinton - Obama. The Democrats are a lock for the Presidency for the next 16 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

True, Sen. Obama has at least two more years experience than Sen. Clinton does, and both are junior Senators from their states.

But reality isn't a Bushie strong suit.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 2, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

rufus: You haven't been on here very long and I have as yet to find a single post by you that has the intellegence equivelent of a 10 year old. I fail to see what "message" you are trying to convey. Day after day all you do is repeat the same stupid/idiotic slogans, or whatever, that does not make sense. Politics is a "Learned" endevor, and in that it takes many years to become proficient in the knowledge of how it actually works.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse


NOT the most




NOT the most




NOT the most




NOT the most



This is just successful marketing
by her campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Clinton, by contrast faces few doubts about her experience in office and her ability to engage at the highest levels on policy matters."

Just WHAT IS her experience? A failed health care reform package, an enabler to her husband's pecadillos, perjury, what else?

Posted by: Marge | August 2, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Or is that farenheiht 451? What does it matter.

1984 is not an instruction manual gop. you read it wrong.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

You should be happy then lopez :).

It's not the person that matters, it's the message.

obama gore 08

Posted by: JKrish | August 2, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama is presenting fresh thinking on the war on terror which moves the focus from Iraq to where it should be, if anywhere. He should focus more, however, on the diplomacy mission, which is to apologize for the harm we have done to the Muslim world since the CIA's 1953 overthrow of democratically elected Iranian president Mossadeq. Obviously any such sensitivity toward the real causes of Muslim hatred, and terrorism, will be ripped as soft by Americans and so needs to be accompanied by a muscular component. The fact is I feel perfectly justified in attacking people who attacked us, and Pakistan is where they live. I would only ask Mr. Obama to send me a check for plagiarizing my blog's foreign policy position, written in July 2006, "The Lopez 12-Steps for Winning the War on Terror." Thanks Barak.

"The Lopez 12-Steps for Winning the War on Terror" at

from the website:

Posted by: Ralph Lopez | August 2, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama is presenting fresh thinking on the war on terror which moves the focus from Iraq to where it should be, if anywhere. He should focus more, however, on the diplomacy mission, which is to apologize for the harm we have done to the Muslim world since the CIA's 1953 overthrow of democratically elected Iranian president Mossadeq. Obviously any such sensitivity toward the real causes of Muslim hatred, and terrorism, will be ripped as soft by Americans and so needs to be accompanied by a muscular component. The fact is I feel perfectly justified in attacking people who attacked us, and Pakistan is where they live. I would only ask Mr. Obama to send me a check for plagiarizing my blog's foreign policy position, written in July 2006, "The Lopez 12-Steps for Winning the War on Terror." Thanks Barak.

"The Lopez 12-Steps for Winning the War on Terror" at

from the website:

Posted by: Ralph Lopez | August 2, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

We got a AG destroying the ag. We got a un ambassator that hates the un. We got peopel saying big gov can do nothing. I wonder if all these fires are start by firefighters as well. If so 1984 should read like a nastradomus prophecy.

GOP. 1984 is not an instructional book to have compleate domination fascsit style. It is a CATIONARY tale. And it's coming true. The 06' elections derailed facism for two years. This our chance to reject it, or embrace it. Time will tell.

They told us their would be false prophets. They didn't lie.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

more on rnc convention speakers

mitt romney on caring for your pets.

round table disscussion on multilple marriges with rudy,fred and newt.

the hot air choir with bill o'rilley, rush limbaugh and sean hannity.

alan keyes speaking for black repubicans, hilarity ensues.

tom delay speaking on ethics.

bill bennet on how to invest in gambling.

sexual morality: senator vitter thoughts on the matter.

a tribute to joe mccarthy by ann coulter and michelle malkin.

using the internet as a resourse, by senator ted stevens.

workplace relations with the opposite sex with bill orielly.

legal matters with alberto gonzales.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

we may have been a free chrsitian nation at one time. People used to flee oppression to come here. Now they're are fleeing oppression here to go elsewhere. People used to come here because they were prohibited from doing what they wanted, now we are silencing and prohibiting all that we can't make money on.

We used to be a chrsitian nation mike. used to be. Thye church of capitalism has replaced the Christian church in this country.

You think I'm lying? Why then do "nice guys finish last"? You silence will be deafening

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Jesus was for the poor
The right is for the rich at the EXPENSE OF THE POOR.

Jesus was for love
The right is for hate

Jesus was for inclusion
The right is for exclusion other than rronald regan clones

Jesus died for us rather than attacking his enemies
the right wants to kill and torture our enemies

The church was ment to spread jesus's teaches
The right wants to supplant his teachings with the love of money (mark of the beast)

Should I go on?

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I'm looking forward to reading:

Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America . . . and What's Happened Since

by Stephen Mansfield (Author)

Posted by: Mike | August 2, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

don't do that mike. You will force me to unload on you, verbally. Bush is not a christian. The "religous" right are party loyal atheist. Don't try and claim chrisitanity. A christian follows the laws of the Christ. Bush and his "religous" right follw the opposite laws. They follwo the laws of the money changers Jesus ment to destroy. You don't want to talk about religon. Stay on topic, or at least politics. I will merf you in terms of religon

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I still like that 1984 obama video with Hildog as big brother. That was on point. And true. She is going to follow the same principles and EXPAND on what Bush has done. If you think bush has spent the last 10 years destroying this great country, don't vote for hillary. All the republcians saying "clinton did this and that" now will be saying" bush did this and that" if hil is elected. I know I don't want that.

Go Obama gore 08

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

It is a time for chance. I know you gop'er want to live like it's still 1962. That time is over. John Wayne is dead. Please evolve and change. Your way of life has done enormous damage not only to the country but the world. If you continue to be greedy racist fascist little piggies WE cannot grow as a human race. Stop holding up progress. You cannot force conservative principles or your ideals on a free people. The time for you to change and evolve is now. OHH yeah. Smoking is bad for you. It's not health as your people told you. THEY WERE LYING TO YOU FOR PROFIT.

"He not busy being born is busy dying".

Bob Dylan

Posted by: RUFUS | August 2, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.

He regularly attended prayer services in the Capitol Building, of all places. To call him a "deist" or an "atheist" is a lie that has been propagated by the secularists for a long time. Hell, I even heard that in school (not surprisingly).
Was Jefferson "extreme" for his time? Sure. He was probably a Unitarian. But he was no doubt a Christian, who believed in [at least certain parts of] the Bible.
As were the other founders of the Constitution.
The letter FROM the Danbury Baptists was an expression of their fear that their faith may come under attack by the state - that specifically, they were outnumbered in the state of Connecticut and thought they might be persecuted.
The letter TO the Baptists in response was reassurance that the state would never impose itself on the church - that the state not only would not officially endorse a Church (like the Anglican Church of England), but that it would not unfairly persecute any faiths.
So when Jefferson penned "A Wall of Separation", he was indeed speaking of the Church needing protection from the State.
At the time, there was no national Church, but the states and Churches often teamed up on matters like helping the poor and other civic work.
The Catholic Missionaries received government funding for their work in the West. That didn't make us a Catholic nation did it?
In multiple ways, the government had since declared since then that we are a Christian nation. Congress wanted to have national days of "rest and prayer". Many of the original 13 colonies endorsed a religion. The Supreme Court even declared "We are a Christian Nation", founded on Christian ideals (which is undeniably true).
The fact that the bill of rights says "CONGRESS" shall make no law speaks to the fact that the founders were specifically addressing the FEDERAL government.
The Supreme Court applying the 14th Amendment to religion was activism. Pure and simple.
I am not arguing we should have state religions. I don't think most people today would want that (Except, perhaps Utah - even then, unlikely).
But what I am suggesting is that there is no reason the secular bench should be taking God out of our pledge, out of our money, and indeed, out of the entire public square.
If Louisiana wants to have a picture of Christ on their courthouse, that's not the ACLU's business. It's not the FEDERAL government's business. It's the state's business.

Posted by: Mike | August 2, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is riding her husbands coattails as far as "experience" goes. I have yet to hear any of the specifics of what her experience is.

Would someon please put together a chart with Senator Clinton's experience matched with Senator Obama's experience. I would love to see each of their accomplishments side by side.

I don't know who told Senator Clinton that she didn't have to roll out specific plans but they're wrong.

Would we actually be crazy enough to trust her to reform healthcare without getting her to commit to specifics? She's already said she would reform healthcare by the END of her SECOND TERM. That means no healthcare reform from Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton is not rolling out specifics because she wants to get in office and do whatever she pleases - just like Bush & Cheney.

We don't want to follow her blindly. Lets demand some specific plans so we know what we might be getting.

Posted by: ItsTimeToTurnThePage | August 2, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I didn't want to leave you hanging any longer. I really want to talk about this.

There's a new book out. I forget the title, but it's something about "10 Words". By someone named Mansfield.

Here is your original post:

Mike, I found the key quote from Reynolds for you. I do not have full access to my research materials because I am in Santa Fe
where we just finished the first day of seminars. Back to that later.
REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
October Term, 1878
"'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
Thus Jefferson's letter was used to protect the state from the church by calling polygamy "conduct", not "belief".
The Everson point I was most trying to make was that it was secularists who brought the case saying their taxes should not be used to bus catholic school kids, and the secularists LOST because a scheme that bussed all kids in the district on taxpayer money did not establish a religion.
I saw that you cited another secondary source that quoted Jefferson's position on state's rights. In 1808, the Bill of Rights had not been imposed on the states - thus many states allowed slavery. The Civil War and the three Amendments that followed it freed the slaves by imposing the Bill of Rights upon the states; although this was the subject of Court cases for years, the intent was clear. As was the intent to make their babies and the babies of the coolies working on the railroad into citizens, also.
The last topic of today's employment law seminar was recent developments in the dos- and-donts of religion in the workplace. This is a rapidly developing area. I was astonished by a few cases, although most made sense to me. The ones that astonished me would have angered you, I suspect: they come from lower federal courts, not the Supremes.
Remember, I am looking at these cases in order to advise employer clients whether they can curtail religious activities at work, or enforce dress codes, or demand employees work on their holidays, or deal with a hundred other questions that involve religion. And every case is different.
Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 26, 2007 07:52 PM

Posted by: Mike | August 2, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

ignore the gop peanut gallery. They think they have a chance in the next election AHHAHAHAHA. How crazy do you gotta be to think the GOP is not going to get swept both in the prez and congress elections.

Now we see what states are filled with retards and fascists (no disrespect to retarded people)

Ignore the peanut gallery. They have nothing to say for themselves. The last 15 years of their rule has been a disaster. Their only hope is to lie spin and discredit. They think they have a chance AHHAHAHA. They think they are still relevant. :). I gotta pity your gopers

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to point out to all those who have accused Obama of overstepping in his statements in re: Pakistan that in making same he was advised by Richard Clarke - you remember, the guy who most people thought knew what was up in re: 09.11...

remember 09.11? That really scary day, back before Bush realized that he could blame everything on Saddam and Iraq?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Don't get it twisted pink. The hate factor for hillary is high on the right and the left. You say the right is pushing obama. I haven't seen that. I see they are scared of him. They are pushing Hillary though (though not in the traditional way). It's funny, they think people won't see it.

Hillary is getting monetary support from Fox and Roger Ailes. Then O'Reilly and Hannity are attacking hildog daily, with monkeys like dick morris. They think they can galvanize the dnc vote by bad mouthing. To bad Fox is also giving her money.

don't get it twisted pink. Certain gop'ers are pushing him because they are racsits and think his skin color will turn off most americans. May have worked a generation with our fathers and grandfathers, but your children and grandchildren are not as racist or intolerant as their fathers. The message is what matters. Do you really think Hillary is going to do the things she's says? I don't

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

What happened to the

8:30 pm Live remote of Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney on Ethics (Ted Stevens hosting)

Or do did that get bumped with them expecting Zouk to be long-winded in his 8 pm medal acceptance, saying the same things over and over and over?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Come to think of it, is there any city in the U.S. that is really going to welcome you guys with open arms?

i hear the iraq parliment is not using bagdad for a month! lovely time of year and all with the sectarian violence and car bombings and the 120 degree heat. maybe they can hold the convention early. i just managed to get the scedule for the convention

7am:prayer breakfast, to the almighty dollar that is

9am:mitt romney flips
9:15am:mitt romney flops

noon:mark foley speaks to the young repubicans in a locked room.

1pm: ann coulter challenges john edwards to a catfight.

2pm: tom tancredo speaks to the latin american public.

3pm: public seance to reach ron reagan is started. fred thompson is reached instead.

4pm mitt romney flops
4:30 mitt romney flips then flops again.

6pm george allen on racial senitivity
6:30pm ted haggard sings i am pretty and its raining men. mark foley sings backup

7pm fred thompson gives speech with wife, everyone pays attention to wife with huge knockers

8pm king of zouk is given the medal of honor for internet trolls, he issues a challenge to fight rufus in a steel cage at wrestlemania.

9pm mitt romney flips,flops, and hires a 500 dollar hair care expert

10pm bill kristol on being right all the time. crowd laughs hysterically.

11pm how to win friends and read important papers by condi rice

12am public sacrifce of a young male page performed by mark foley

4am george w bush gives closing address to a empty room. stay the course,9/11 and decider is said repeatedly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

anon 05:05 PM: What you failed to reveal is that the polling done was by a repub leaning firm. This has been going on for a long time now and the repub party is supporting Obama for they know he is so weak and has ZERO chance of being elected in 08. This is, and has been my honest opinion from the start. Hillary is leading everywhere except Iowa, and most are in the double digit range, while Obama is not leading in a single state, including Illinois, according to all the information I have been able to find. Hillary is the one the repubs know they cannot defeat and are trying every way they can think of to deny her the nomination, which they are also failing to do, "Big Time". This is where the "Fear Factor" comes into play, support the canditate you "Fear" the least in the hope he/she will be your opponent in the General.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Ooopps! Wrong, William. Mea Culpa!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people parrot the talking points of the campaigns without any substance and information on which to base the criticism of Obama. For example, the statement about the use of nucs is a red herring, i.e. there is no issue. No American President, not one, would use nucs unless we were under a nuclear attack. By using nucs to go after terrorists, we would be creating the very arms race all nations want to avoid. People need to really start thinking before just spouting political rhetoric.

Furthermore, the national polls mean nothing at this point. The polls will only matter when we get closer to the election days, which I suspect will be a lot closer than they are now. Because at some point, the experienced candidates will begin to paint Clinton with the same inexperience brush she has attempted to use against Obama. Clinton is only a one term Senator. She has no independent experience. At some point, that issue will be raised. For the Democrats sake, it better be raised better the general election because you better believe that the Republicans will make that an issue. Most, if not all the Republicans, have more experience than Clinton. It will be an issue.

Posted by: antonio | August 2, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

William meet rufus; rufus meet William.

Please find some other blog for what will inevitably be inane exchanges.

Thank you.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

William - I thought that they made you LaCrosse players transfer from that tobacco-based school and stop accessing The Fix.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

So, Republicans, Where Do You Plan to Convene Now?

Seriously, is any place safe for you guys? Anyplace in the United States you can go without the scorn of a city's citizens?

As you know, Republicans will descend on St. Paul, Minnesota next year for their convention.

And we have a collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, symbolic of the years of neglect in infrastructure spending. What a horrific reminder on the necessity of government spending, staring the party of 'small government' in the face.

My suggestion to Republicans: find a new convention site. Now.

Of course, you'll have trouble finding one at this late date. But hey, how about trying?

How about New Orleans? No? Sore spot there. OK.

How about New York? You've been there last time. And I'm sure you won't mind visiting the WTC be reminded that your party has STILL failed to get Osama bin Laden.

You can't go to Denver. We'll be there...sorry.

How about Detroit or San Francisco? Well considering they both just passed resolutions to impeach the current leader of your party, maybe not.

How about Albuquerque, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, or Raleigh? Oh wait, those cities are currently working on those pesky impeachment resolutions as well.

Come to think of it, is there any city in the U.S. that is really going to welcome you guys with open arms?

I'm really beginning to wonder.

Because your only selling point is this:

We'll do for your town what we did for New Orleans.

Lovely legacy for you guys, really.

Posted by: William | August 2, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Sen Obama runs the risk of the over-promsing-under-delivering hubris with his "comprehensive" in his policy proclamations.
There is a tremendous amount which Senator Obama doesn't know about both the nuances and current state of affairs with foreign policy, and this gap is often overlooked in the urgent rush to seem or appear as a "leader with a plan." Argubably, a one-sided, limited knowledge plan isnt much of a plan at all in a polychronic environment.
Being dismissive of Clinton's lack-of-plan is overlooking the prudence of knowing what-you-dont-know and not wanting to "establish policy" for simply establishing-a-policy's sake.
What is also overlooked is that her husband, as a ex-president, by law, receives daily CIA briefings -- the substance which is clearly lacking in Obama's "comprehensive" policies.

Posted by: David from Kansas | August 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

BU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- U.S. officials underestimated how difficult it would be for the Iraqi government to pass political reforms, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, adding that the "depth of mistrust" among the factions is greater than anticipated.

"In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation," Gates said.

Gates' comments came a day after six Sunni Cabinet ministers from the Iraqi Accordance Front quit in protest over what they said was Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's failure to respond to a set of demands.

On Thursday Gates said the political developments are "somewhat discouraging at the national level," but he hopes it can be patched back together.'

No, no one could have foreseen that Sunnis and Shia, who have been fighting for 2000 years, could possibly have trouble getting along. Especialy after the Sunni minority had been brutally repressing the Shia during the Baathist regime. Nope, no reason to suspect things wouldn't be just peachy.

Posted by: Martin | August 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Please do not address or acknowledge the trolls in any way, particularly by name. Ignore them completely.

Posted by: Zookeepress | August 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

dragging this conversation kicking and screaming back on topic......
its funny that most of the rightie posters on here are complaining about obama's speech about hitting pakistan if they dont act on binladin. yeah binladin remember him? leader of alquida? along with his no.2 guy alman zhalhiwi(sp?) you that guy who keeps making all of those video threats every so often?

one poster said this will piss off the anti war left. ummm hello? the left has been saying lets get binladin for years now! lets not take our eye off the ball here. obama making this speech only strenghens his cred with the left, and bringing in some moderates and milltary folk who think the job in afganistan(remember that country) was left undone.

imagine if pakistan was(and probably is) hiding binladin. i would rather america force them to hand him over and go in send binladin st8t to hell. its fine and dandy we got some of his henchmen who planned 9/11 but lets get the kingpin too.

Posted by: spartan | August 2, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

David Cross: Once in a great while the TRUTH comes out as your post did about why Osama bin Laden attacked us. There was more, including how we turned against him after he had fought so hard for us. The Bush and the Saudi royal families have been close for many, many years.

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove refused to answer at least a dozen questions from a Senate committee Thursday about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.'

what is the scumbag hiding?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

well i see the zouk troll has been on here all day, as usual. what a pathetic wasted life.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Your $15 gets DFA's ad on the air.
As America's top cop, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be protecting our Constitution and the rule of law.

Instead, he is using the Justice Department for political purposes: from purging prosecutors he doesn't agree with to covering up for the Bush gang's illegal surveillance programs -- and lying about it all to Congress.

It's time to impeach Gonzales. DFA has a new TV ad to amplify our message. Can you contribute $15 right now and get this ad on the air?"

Posted by: democracy for america | August 2, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

your people (4:57): how many times are you going to post that stale "joke"?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"These people have lots and lots of $$$ which is something that poor Cindy doesn't bring to the table, so in that sense, you are correct. The anti-war people *who have money* and influence are the base of the Democratic Party."

wHAT ARE YOU SAYING. tHAT MONEY NOW RUNS NOT ONLY THE GOP BUT THE DNC ALSO. You mean their "socalist" principles aren't running the show? Get your stroy staright. Are we facsits or socialists. ARe ideals running the party or $$$$$.

Why do we even waste our time trying to discuss serious topics with you gop'ers. We all the know the only thing you care about is money and making sure the dems don't tax you. Even if they just want to tax millionaires

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"These people have lots and lots of $$$ which is something that poor Cindy doesn't bring to the table, so in that sense, you are correct. The anti-war people *who have money* and influence are the base of the Democratic Party."

wHAT ARE YOU SAYING. tHAT MONEY NOW RUNS NOT ONLY THE GOP BUT THE DNC ALSO. You mean their "socalist" principles aren't running the show? Get your stroy staright. Are we facsits or socialists. ARe ideals running the party or $$$$$.

Why do we even waste our time trying to discuss serious topics with you gop'ers. We all the know the only thing you care about is money and making sure the dems don't tax you. Even if they just want to tax millionaires

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous insightfully scribes--"The people want honesty. Obama has it

If so he should just admit:

'I honestly don't know what I am doing. I thought all the platitudes about hope would suffice'."

Oh, I think you underestimate him gravely. Please read the literature.

His major fault is not being able to make 30-second soundbites sound like they could actually be Complete Eight Point Plans To Solve Everything.

When it comes to deep analysis of the issues, I venture to say he is at the very top of the crop along with Biden. Too bad the public is not interested.

Posted by: roo | August 2, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

More than 400 clinton scandals. something for everyone. Turn the page. Move on. Take the bridge TO the 21st century - no u-turns.

Hey journos - dig up the truth for once.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Tsunami Tuesday Could Crush Obama

lyle - this will put a spring in your step. the evidence is mounting that Hillary is unstoppable.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The people want honesty. Obama has it

If so he should just admit:

"I honestly don't know what I am doing. I thought all the platitudes about hope would suffice".

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Sarah: I would like to know where you got "Obama is now the clear cut leader and favorite of Democratic canditates, everyone else is simply following in his footsteps." Obama may be your favorite, but I try and point out FALSE statements by anyone, and that one by you is a "Whopper".

Posted by: lylepink | August 2, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I just found out that the main contributor to Hillary's campaign is the lobbying firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. One of her relatives sits on the board.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama's handlers are getting the better of him at times, which is very unfortunate campaign-wise.

I have few reservations or doubts about Obama when he actually makes it into office. Until that, however, I am continuously concerned that his handlers will get the better of him which could be disastrous for the campaign.

The people want honesty. Obama has it, his handlers I am not certain about.

Posted by: roo | August 2, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

top secret schedule for the opening day Democrat Presidential Nominating Convention to be held on August 25, 2008 in Denver, Colorado:

7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.

7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to the United Nations.

7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Multicultural prayer and worship, led by Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Imam Sheikh Mohammed bin Mohammed abu Allahu Gawwad.

8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.

8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding of Former Congressman Mark Foley and Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevy -- Barney Frank presiding.

8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:35 P.M. "Free Saddam" Rally, led by Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon.

9:00 P.M. Keynote speech: The Proper Etiquette for Surrender -- French President Jacques Chirac.

9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit the Osama Bin Laden Kidney Transplant Fund.

9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay -- Sean Penn.

9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.

9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented the Truth in Broadcasting Award, presented by Michael Moore.

9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

10:00 P.M. Speech: How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers -- Howard Dean.

10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents the Internet.

11:15 P.M. Speech: Our Troops Are War Criminals -- John Kerry.

11:30 P.M. Coronation of HRH (Her Royal Highness) Hillary Rodham Clinton.

12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

2:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home

Posted by: your people | August 2, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

NonP says "The Democratic base is not made up of Cindy Sheehans."

LOL! No, your'e right. Its made up of Sean Penns, and Susan Sarandons, and George Soros, and Rosie O'Donnells, and Martin Sheens, and Barbra Streisands, and Sheryl Crows, and Jeanine Garofalos, and Michael Moores, etc, etc,etc....

and other whales like Goldman Sachs, Baron & Budd, Girardi & Keese, Skadden, Arps et al , Lehman Brothers, Beasley, Allen et al, Clifford Law Offices, Bryan Cave LLP, AOL Time Warner, Robinson, Calcagnie et al, Robinson & Cole, Weitz & Luxenberg, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Mintz, Levin et al, Fieger, Fieger et al, just to name a few.

These people have lots and lots of $$$ which is something that poor Cindy doesn't bring to the table, so in that sense, you are correct. The anti-war people *who have money* and influence are the base of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Can I be more like hil and simply robot all my lines? It seems to work better with gullible Dem voters.

CNN - you were supposed to make sure no hard questions were ever asked of Lib candidates. what happened?

Posted by: obama the limp | August 2, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"For Obama that means proving to voters that there is policy behind his polish, that he is more than just a pretty face. Creating a policy palette for himself is an attempt by Obama to counter the criticism that he is not experienced enough after just two years in the Senate to lead the nation at the critical time."

If making bellicose statements and leaving the American people with the impression that he would invade a nuclear armed country of over 160 million people that could be the tipping point for the overthrow of Musharraf is what is on his 'policy palette', Obama is toast. The only worse than his inexperience is his willingness to follow poor advise from a bunch of political handlers who's sole objective is to get this man in power, regardless of the senator's inability to lead this nation at such a critical time. This went over like a lead balloon. Obama is done.
Now maybe the press can finally start paying attention to Biden, Richardson, and Dodd; people who actually have the experience to run this country. Senator Clinton's 'rope-a-dope' strategy has exposed Obama for what he really is, the typical politician full of rhetoric who hasn't delivered on anything. Health care - take a look at what is happening at Cook county's hospital and how the Democratic machine is more interested in patronage rewards than delivering services to the constituents - and Obama endorsed one of the most incompetent presidents for the county board. Ethics reform - Rezko and Blago and Daley - the idea that anyone wants to replace the Washington politics with those that are practiced in Chicago and Springfield is laughable. And the most over riding issue that he is completely ill prepared to address is the state of our armed forces, something your commentary completely misses. I don't care how the press try's to spin this, no one in Iowa or NH is going to take this guy serious after such a disastrous misstep as this speech was.

Posted by: clawrence | August 2, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Meat on his bones will taste just like chicken once the clintonista attack machine gets him in their sites.

Does anyone honestly think that hillary will not be the nominee?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Thursday, August 02, 2007 AP

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Sean Penn for his critical stance against the war in Iraq, saying the two chatted by phone and plan to meet Thursday.

He called the actor "well-informed about what is happening in the United States and the world, in spite of being in Hollywood."

rufus- You missed your flight. The socialist nirvana down south awaits you, and your buddy Sean will be there too.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 2, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the 9-11 commission. I thought that was one of the first 100 hours pledges. Well? How many hours are we at now? Maybe adopting it was in one of those 1700 earmarks I missed.

Posted by: TG | August 2, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on Chris. Hillary is a tier of her own, and I am totally certain you are aware of that. On health care, her SCHIP plan is most likely a trojan horse to get to federally funded health coverage. It's politically brilliant. Bob Novak wrote a good piece on this. If Obama has been trying to put meat on the bone, if that is what this has been, he sorely misses the mark.

Posted by: MJ | August 2, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

proud - why do you feel it necessary to distort the Democrats support of the President when he was going after the actual terrorists in Afghanistan, by stating that they would be angered now if we returned to what we should have been doing all along.

The Democratic base is not made up of Cindy Sheehans.

Posted by: NonP | August 2, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I waer the pants in this party, harry reid declared as he headed to the bathroom to freshen up his make-up.

If there's any nuking to be done, it will be by me - Generallisima Pelosi retorted.

not if we can help it the clintons replied. we are the most experienced at killing people.

Posted by: Dem toons | August 2, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

still think bush and his buddies aren't in line with the terrorists and other groups he "claims" to be agaisnt? Remember this:

"The Pentagon sold more than a thousand aircraft parts that could be used on F-14 fighter jets - a plane flown only by Iran - after announcing it had halted sales of such surplus, government investigators say.

In a report Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said the Defense Department had improved security in its surplus program to prevent improper sales of sensitive items.

But investigators found that roughly 1,400 parts that could be used on F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets were sold to the public in February. That came after the Pentagon announced it had suspended sales of all parts that could be used on the Tomcat while it reviewed security concerns.

Iran, trying to keep its F-14s able to fly, is aggressively seeking components from the retired U.S. Tomcat fleet.

The Pentagon's surplus sales division - the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service - told investigators the parts were sold because it failed to update an automated control list and remove the aircraft parts before they were listed on its Internet sales site.

The GAO's investigation focused on F-14 parts.

"One country with operational F-14s, Iran, is known to be seeking these parts," Greg Kutz, the GAO's managing director of special investigations, wrote in the report. "If such parts were publicly available, it could jeopardize national security."

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"Court rules against homeowners in Katrina case
Insurance policies did not cover flood damage, federal appeals court says"

Posted by: ALL ASPECTS OF GOV (DOJ) DESTROYED BY GOP | August 2, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Tawana "he never stated expressly nor implied that he would send TROOPS into Pakistan"

I commend Senator Obama for his hawkish stance, even though it clashes with his usual rhetoric. I applaud his willingness to potentially anger the liberal base of the dem party, which he has otherwise courted vigorously. But, how do you figure that there is no implication of a pre-emptive strike or military action in Pakistan in his statement?

Here's what he said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Speaking as the theoretical Leader of the Free World, as he couched his statements, I think it would be highly irresponsible to speak those words unless he actually did mean every single implication that can be taken from them.

To utter such a phrase directed at another sovreign country is a very serious prospect, and the diplomatic consequences of it are very real. Surely Senator Obama would not utter such a warning in jest, or merely to prove his opponent wrong.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 2, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I am more of a man than that old cow, b husain Obama said. and I can prove it too. I will nuke those suckers, unless I don't, but I might. but no, nukes are just wrong. but if hillary says so I will, maybe.

Can I get an easier question? I like John's hair and hills jugs, for the record. Please ignore my ears.

Posted by: yo mama obama | August 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Two comments here:

First, for this comment audience, David Cross, yes, exactly, a nation of 6 year olds....if you believe the current Iraq status sticks and Bush sticks without enough public momentum to dictate the peaceview and diplomacy, largely due to the fact that the leader is not there for the remedial action, the leadership needed is not there...

A cartoon, showing two five year old boys sitting in a living room, "playing", with their arms raised against each other, and the caption read, "Stop hitting me so I can stop hitting you!".

Of course the laughing matter is the reality that parents will enter the room and put a stop to the game before anybody gets hurt. Necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but supposed to be the reality background for the humor.

We are sorely in need of proper policy in the Oval Office.

Good Leadership in Office is supposed to be "expected" not deemed too idealistic, rather it should be required. Profiteering is to be done in the private sector. Public interest is to be voted on and net a majority result for everyone's best choice, not dictated, but free and informed with consent and approval.

Our Democracy is supposed to allow the majority rule at an informed level of principle and public interest to rule at the ballot box, most especially when the corruption is evident ("War is a racket" and obviously not civilized...and everyone knows the technology is very out of line with reality...stopping the racket and keeping diplomacy and proper living for proper results in view, demands responsible, deliberative democracy)--we are supposed to vote a national truth...not lies, not a box of two evils and only those allowed.

Non-partisan elections is not two party rule. Dominance "entrenched" by commercial media at a corporate corrupt unconscionable level of profit margins as their ceiling of no conscience ruling, with the public watching and not acting.

Moving forward, start with the polls. As a volunteer doing ballot access petitioning for valid voter signatures registered in Massachusetts, many were upset in 2004 claiming, "he cannot win!" and with terrified eyes said only the two party system was there for the voters...a fact I knew they must know was not true, if Nader was on the ballot in every state, certainly he could win, just from the voters proven leverage, but they were terrified, and truly appeared to believe the money and ruled and the corrupt powermongers were indeed the "system" when they certainly are not. Private corporations are ruled by the invisible hand of competition in a capitalist society. Government is public and subject to the public majority voters rule. The best is supposed to hold the office not for profit, but to serve the public interest for good government, for everyone. I promised the City of Cambridge Massachusetts I would get the polls to change the wording to net honest public opinion and individual preference measured to net the honest national truth of the campaign progress, longitudinally. BEST not a negative against (unconscionable use of voting), best, affirmative, or no vote, none of the above is better than putting corruption in office....affirmative truth at the individual level nets the majority truth, when everyone offers honest opinions to the pollsters...but the pollsters don't want that...democracy DEMANDS IT. If you do not tell your individual truth, you do not have democracy. It is that simple.

Details posted due to Obama's offensive statements, on my blog of personal opinion, link given here for those interested....

I will TRY to get the polls to change their wording from the universally pre-emptive predicting results of their standard question: "If the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?" People guage their answers on who they believe is going to win, and their answer is not truth, it is leverage, and has no true meaning when that is against others, and not affirmative at all. It is horrific. 10 news polls refused to change it to an affirmative question. They have to ask, more than 1000 people for a Presidential Election measuring a nation's opinion, WHO DO YOU WANT MOST? And let every vote count! Who are you going to vote for should be after all the primaries and after the debates.

Cheers, with hope and grace, and faith, and respect for the religious leaders in the Middle East who abhor terrorists as much as anyone.

Ben Franklin advised himself and his audience (I loved his autobiography) always preface opinions you believe are fact, with "IN MY OPINION" - so here, yes, this is my opinion, which I believe is true.

Posted by: Goldpost | August 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Maybe he should just admit he hasn't really thought about it much. Or he could just say "whatever hillary does, I will do too, but better". Rank amatuer starting to show he's not ready for the bigs.

Posted by: I just don't know | August 2, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Wilmington, DE (July 27, 2007) - Sen. Joe Biden issued the following statement in response to Rudy Giuliani's recent baseless attack on Democrats' national security credentials:

"Rudy Giuliani just doesn't get it. Tough talk and cheap shots won't make America any safer or get mine resistant vehicles to our troops any faster. It is absurd for Rudy Giuliani to call Democrats 'losers' after five years of failed Republican policies in Iraq.

"It is outrageous that three years after the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations virtually nothing has been funded by this White House and yet Giuliani continues to make the pathetic case that his party has provided leadership fighting terrorism. As everyone knows, until we end the war in Iraq, we are distracted from the main agenda of combating terrorism in Afghanistan and strengthening our homeland security. Giuliani and the rest of the Republican candidates continue to cling to this Administration's failed policy that a strong central government can be propped up in Iraq. If these are the positions he wants to defend, I invite him to debate me on these important topics."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's Political bloody guts belong in a pie in Hillary's face.

I am not voting for either of them, guaranteed."

I'm sure that the both of them will be personally crushed to hear that they won't be getting the vote of someone who favors bloody guts in a pie. I'm also sure that Ron Paul will count himself lucky to have your support.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 2, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris, You're the man!
They need each other! Obama and Clinton!
Which order? That's up to God and the American (the decent ones) people.
We need them too!
May God Bless Cinton and Obama!

Posted by: Leon | August 2, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, and our ties with the Saudi family and all our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he f---ing said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes."

Posted by: David Cross | August 2, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

There only hope is to lie spin and discredit. If the gop pronounced their fascsit goals they would be eliminated. It used to work zouk. Your games used to work, before the internet. You could go to one group, lie, go to another group and say the opposite LIE. No more. we have the internet now. Your party WILL be eliminated as a results./ I don't hate you, I pity you

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Big Bad Ugly Obama. Impressed? No, the opposite. How to live? Fight Like Hell? No, that is entirely missing international respect for sovereignty and religious truth of the terrorists v. the true practitioners. How to live is not to die, except by God's intention that we all have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Obama cannot have my son. Obama's Political bloody guts belong in a pie in Hillary's face.

I am not voting for either of them, guaranteed.

I know who I am voting for. The media calls him a Protest vote, as if Protest at the Ballot Box is not the essence of true American Democracy and Freedom for the public interest at a majority rule level provided by the Constitutions free non-partisan elections.

The role of the United States is to govern itself, not the world. And honest elections, with principle is required.

Who knew?

Posted by: Goldpost | August 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

hillary clinton is not the nominee YET. can you gop'ers plaes at least wait until then to try and justify your fascsim?

YOu cannot defend bush by pointing to Hillary. That only works if you are rush limbaugh or one of his mindless dittoheads. What has the gop done right the last 15 years? You sure have done much wrong. You sure have screwed things up. What have you right? It should be easy. The crickets will let all independant thinkers know you ar epropogandist reaching for straws. I laugh at you HAHAHAHAHA. You like fish out of water, grasping for air. Your party has a year. BILL clinot was in office a decade ago. Stop justifiying fascsim by pointing to another fascsit. It is a mockery of political dialogue

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea is currently dating Marc Mezvinsky, a Goldman Sachs employee and the son of disgraced former Congressman Edward Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, also a former member of Congress.[12]

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Nearly $10 million was involved in the crimes. He is due to be released from prison in 2008

she wants to marry someone just like dear old dad.

chelsea was overheard to say - Yeah, my dads a crook too, he just hasn't been caught yet. mom says she'll pardon him anyway - no charge.

Posted by: a marriage of two crime families? | August 2, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

yOU KNOW WHAT i THINK ABOUT hILLARY. She is really a republican. What would you gopers do if you didn't have her to point to? How would you justify the last 15 years of republcian rule? "I know you are but what am I" elementary school arguement.

What about soemthign from this decade.

Posted by: RUFUS | August 2, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What's the matter, Chris, feeling guilty because you joined the chorus of misrepresentation of Senator Obama's speech? I'm sure it's not lost on you at this point that your flashy but deceptive headline "Obama threatens to send TROOPS into Pakistan" has completely derailed his campaign. The MSM was hell bent on putting the Senator in his place, and now you've succeeded. Why implore your readers to read the full text of the speech to discover that he never stated expressly nor implied that he would send TROOPS into Pakistan--after the damage is done? Do you think this will absolve you of the type of Rupert Murdoch owned journalism that you turn your nose down to? It's too late for that! The WaPo and other so-called papers of record are nothing more than the NY Post with a better masthead.

Posted by: Tawana | August 2, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

The surge won't work because it took a man like Saddam Hussein to keep order in Iraq and nobody is going to endorse that plan. Sad but true.

Posted by: porridge | August 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

TG, in re: dated Dean, married Kerry - right. As in Dean, whose 50-state strategy won Congress back for the Democrats, and Kerry, whose assumption that if he ignored the Swift Boat people everyone else would.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse


1996 - HILLARY CLINTON produces a book-like substance that she claimed to have written in long-hand in six months. It would turn out that she had a ghost writer hired for $120,000

Posted by: I cannnot tell the truth | August 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the link. It is certainly thought provoking. Here's my take-away, from that article and a piece from Sunday's NYT Book Review (which included a summary of the 'book' that is the military ops manual about counterinsurgency; i.e. the Petreus plan). The surge is more than a military plan. What we hear about the surge are the military aspects, but there's typically not much discussion about the additional components. A couple of those are that the Iraqi army holds territory that our troops clear and that the Iraqi gov't gets its act together to start doing their jobs. Without that support, our military successes will be short-term. Having said that, there's a compelling argument to be made that whatever progress is or is not happening with the surge, at this point it makes sense to wait until Sept and see what's happening then. What I am frustrated with is that our government still seems to be treating the surge as solely the domain of the military - it appears that our state department, for instance, is not working with other players to get them involved. Those would be the Iraqi government & Iraq's neighbors. The Saudis, for instance, have done nothing to help our efforts in Iraq - and can fairly be described as being explicitly unhelpful, in calling it an illegal occupation. So, in the end, I still suspect that the surge won't work, though not due to failures by our military, but due to failures by our political leadership.

Posted by: bsimon | August 2, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse


CNN, MAR 18, 1999 - Deputy independent counsel Hickman Ewing testified at the Susan McDougal trial Thursday that he had written a "rough draft indictment" of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton after he doubted her truthfulness in a deposition. Ewing, who questioned Mrs. Clinton in a deposition at the White House on April 22, 1995, said, "I had questions about whether what she was saying were accurate. We had no records. She was in conflict with a number of interviews."

Ewing said those interviews by investigators were primarily with other people in the Rose Law Firm. Ewing said he had questioned Mrs. Clinton about her representation of Jim McDougal's Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan when she was at the Rose Law firm in Little Rock. "I don't know if she was telling the truth. I did not circulate the draft. I showed it to one lawyer (in the independent counsel's office) who said he didn't want to see it," Ewing said, under questioning from McDougal attorney Mark Geragos. . .

Ewing also testified that in a later deposition with both the president and first lady on July 22, 1995, he had questions about the truthfulness of both Clintons. McDougal's attorney Mark Geragos asked Ewing: "Did you say the Clintons were liars?" "I don't know if I used the 'L-word' but I expressed internally that I was concerned," Ewing said.

Posted by: hey scooter, try this | August 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Yep, she's experienced all right.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse


The wife of Arkansas security operative Jerry Parks told Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph that in the 1980s her husband had delivered large sums of money from the Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovered this when she opens her car trunk one day and found so much cash that she had to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asked her husband whether he was dealing drugs, and he allegedly explained that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen.". . . .

Later Evans-Pritchard wrote, "Foster was using him as a kind of operative to collect sensitive information on things and do sensitive jobs. Some of this appears to have been done on behalf of Hillary Clinton. . . Foster told him that Hillary wanted it done. Now, my understanding . . . is that she wanted to know how vulnerable he would be in a presidential race on the question of -- how shall I put it? -- his appetites."

In 1993, on the night before Vince Foster's death, Jerry Parks' wife claimed she heard a heated conversation between her husband and Foster in which Parks said, "You can't give Hillary those files, they've got my name all over them." Parks was gunned down mob-style two months after Foster's death in his car outside of Little Rock. He was shot through the rear window of his car and three more times thru the side window with a 9mm pistol.

Parks was running American Contract Services, the business which supplied bodyguards for Clinton during his presidential campaign and transition. Bill Clinton still owed him $81,000. Parks had collected detailed data on Clinton's sexual escapades, including pictures and dates. Mrs. Parks claims federal agents subsequently raided their house and removed files and the computer.

Less than three hours after Foster's body was found, his office was secretly searched by Clinton operatives, including Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff. Another search occurred two days later. Meanwhile, US Park Police and FBI agents are not allowed to search the office on grounds of "executive privilege."

Posted by: the sopranos | August 2, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse


On the Jim Lehrer Newshour in 1996, HRC was asked if she kept a diary. Her response: "Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can't write anything." She added that her comments would be used to "go after and persecute every friend of mine, everybody I've ever talked with, everyone I've had a conversation with. ~ It's very sad."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: check it out | August 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

You guys have a lot of egg yolk on your face this morning. You spent the entire day yesterday attacking Senator Obama over his foreign policy position in the Middle East only to find out that your respective candidates fully endorse and support Obama's speech and position towards Al Qaeda and Pakistan (both candidates made statements last night to this affect). You guys call yourselves "political operatives"? More like political hacks! Talk about a Pavlov dog response! What fools goes out there and bashes an opposition candidate without first ascertaining their own candidate's position on the issue? I seriously hope that none of you are getting paid for your efforts on this blogsite. This blunder and rush to judgment will not be forgotten on this board. You guys have lost all credibility and I honestly suggest that you start posting under a different moniker moving forward. Absolutely pathetic.

It's okay to be Hillary and Edwards operatives and blog all day and night on this board (and others) but at the very least be informed on the position of your own candidates before attacking Senator Obama. He's on the right side of this issue and Clinton and Edwards agrees with him (becoming more and more of a routine I would say on their part). It's okay to be a political operative on NYT and WAPO boards schilling for your respective candidates but at the very least do your homework and utilize some basic intelligence before jumping on your soapbox and spitting a bunch of non-sensical rhetoric that totally contravenes your own candidate's position on the subject matter.

Again Obama is leading the way for all of the other candidates, both Democrat and Republican. Some Politicians are leaders. Some are followers. Obama is clearly a leader and the rest are playing catch up.

Posted by: Kathy | August 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse


1993 -HILLARY CLINTON and David Watkins move to oust the White House travel office in favor of World Wide Travel, Clinton's source of $1 million in fly-now-pay-later campaign trips that essentially financed the last stages of the campaign without the bother of reporting the de facto contribution. The White House fires seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement, will be acquitted in less than two hours by the jury. An FBI agent involved in the case, IC Smith, will write later, "The White House Travel Office matter sent a clear message to the Congress as well as independent counsels that this Whit House would be different. Lying, withholding evidence, and considering - even expecting - underlings to be expendable so the Clintons could avoid accountability for their actins would become the norm."

Independent Counsel Robert Ray's final report on the White House travel office case found first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's testimony in the matter was "factually false," but concluded there were no grounds to prosecute her. The special prosecutor determined the first lady did play a role in the 1993 dismissal of the travel office's staff, contrary to her testimony in the matter. But Ray said he would not prosecute Clinton for those false statements because "the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that she knew her statements were false or understood that they may have prompted the firings. . . The final report concludes that "despite that falsity, no prosecution of Mrs. Clinton is warranted."-CNN

Ray also criticized the White House on Thursday for what he called "substantial resistance" to providing "relevant evidence" to his investigators. "The White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court," Ray said. "White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails." -CNN

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse


TWO MONTHS after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama gave a great speech yesterday! He is the type of leader that America needs today: bold, direct, honest, knowledgeable and very experienced. He speech showed a lot of guts. I'm proud of him. Most of the negative comments on this board are written by "in the pocket" posters who never took the time to read this powerful 13 page speech which put forth a comprehensive plan to address the growing problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Obama is now the clear cut leader and favorite among the Democratic candidates; everyone else is simply following in his footsteps:

Interestingly, one candidate who seemed to find agreement with Obama was Clinton. "Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. 'If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America,' Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks."

Edwards seemed to agree with him, too. "'We have a responsibility to go find al Qaeda and (Osama) bin Laden wherever they operate,' Edwards said after a fundraiser in San Francisco, appearing to agree with Obama's call during a major foreign policy speech in Washington for possible U.S. military action in Pakistan against terrorists hiding there. Edwards said that if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can't control such operatives, 'we have to do it.'"

Obama in '08! He's a true leader! Everyone else is simply Obama-Lite!!

Posted by: Sarah | August 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

AFTER BECOMING involved in politics, Wellesley graduate Hillary Rodham orders her senior thesis sealed from public view.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I must really be scaring you fascists today. You got anything of your own or are you going to attack me all day?

I must really be putting fear in your heart. Fear doesn't exist. Get a brian of your own. Stop being a dittohead. YOur avatar is gone in a year. What will you do then? Think for yourselfs.

I must be on the right track if I'm scaring you gop'ers so much. I'll continue

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Go OBama gore 08. You gop sabotage monkeys are funny to me. You party has a year. Instead of fixing the damge of the last fifteen years what do you do, lie spin discredit. You have a year. Rather than digging yourself deeper in a hole why not try and fix the problems you have cause. What have youu peaople done right in 15 years? Tell me. And don't say stocks. clinton had a pretty good econmoy if I recall with not even a 10th of the failings and mishaps. What have you done right gop? You people are incompent sabotuers. As long as money is flowing right, screw the country, right gop. Sell-out traitors. YOu have a year.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

He's trying to eliminate the perception of an experience gap between himself and Hillary. His super speech from yesterday...

...will definitely help. Might not play well with antiwar Dems, but moderate s and those seeking "electability" will love it.

Posted by: chrisfl | August 2, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The VA said i was stupid before the shell shcok. thay told me two waite for hillary care.

Posted by: dufas1133 | August 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, whats wrong with a little civil disorder? after all, its best to get acquainted on the Internet now before it happens in real life!!

Posted by: uuu | August 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I have now both listened to BO's speech and read it. I'll come back to that.


for an unusually blunt analysis of Iraq that suggests that EITHER the surge OR rapid withdrawal make more sense than the centrist approaches that I have been supporting. I found it fascinating and food for thought, even though it says that both proud AND Bill Richardson have a better handle on Iraq than I!

JimD, have a safe trip.

BO's speech was straightforward enough and included enough detail to satisfy those who said he was running on "hope", as CC and Golgi expressed. It would have fit neatly with either Bill Clinton's or GWB's testimony to the 9-11 Commission and that should not be a surprise if Richard Clarke had a hand in it. Because BO had only spoken in generalities in the past, he was not inconsistent with himself, either. I think it may not be worth commentary beyond that. You either like the guy or not. I have not tuned him out - as I have Romney, for instance. He may have as much credible experience as HRC, or more, but he is not in a league with McCain,Biden, Dodd, or the aforementioned Richardson on experience. I suppose he only has to run against HRC right now.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 2, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

At least the vets have government health care.......

Posted by: yahuh | August 2, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - we at the VA are here to help Vets with problems like the rufuses.

The rufuses keep ignoring us.

Posted by: Elias | August 2, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Define "is"

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

If a troll and his sock puppet laugh at each other's jokes, who logs on to the machine?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Define "conviction."

In a fair world, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz would stand trial for war crimes in an international tribunal.

But this world is far from fair. So don't even think about using the Clintons to define all people left of center because that is truly unfair.

Posted by: novelty name | August 2, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

If a troll ignores himself does he go away?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

George Skirkanich, I agree with you. I think it's great that the Dems have been given such good choices: HRC, Obama, Biden, Richardson, & Dodd. I will volunteer for whichever one of them gets the nomination. (Sorry, I can't stomach Edwards, and Gravel & Kucinich don't count.)

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | August 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Why are we in Iraq?

Because we are on a mission from God!

Posted by: Elwood | August 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The experience of Clinton?....she voted to authorize the war...without reading the NIE...for political points. Jesus. What experience are you talking about. She is experienced with playing politics with the lives of our servicemen..nothing more. Or how about her "stay the course" rhetoric. Is that another example of her "experience". Only a fool would vote for such a charlatan.

Posted by: sahmadi | August 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

rufus channels tricky dick
"I am not a troll."

12 steps can help.

Step 1: admit you have a problem.

Posted by: bsimon | August 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama is fading actually. Which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. I think with his first of policy speeches he has started to show his inexperience and has now made a few big blunders. Today for example he supposedly said that as commander in chief he would never use nuclear weapons. He quickly began back tracking but I think what you see (especially with the talk of putting troops in pakistan where our Musharref is clinging to power and these comments undermine him completely) is that Obama is not very disciplined and needs to think things through a bit more. That is the inexperience factor. The dated dean married kerry phenomenon will repeat itself and Hillary will be the sensible and sturdy choice. As once again (and strangely only in election cycles) Dems lead with their heads and not their hearts.

Posted by: TG | August 2, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"scandal plagued administration "

you have got to be kidding. Name them. not the ones where you disagree with a policy or wish to slander a good person - a scandal where someone went to jail. you may have to go back to pre 2000 if you really want a treasure trove of convictions - the most of any administration ever.

Or just continue to make stuff up as always. If you are a hillary supporter, you had better get used to making stuff up (her accomplishments) or hiding from the past(clinton 1, most corrupt ever).

Posted by: Reid my Libs | August 2, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Why are we in Iraq again?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

(it's much cheaper than child health care...)

ENT - Otorhinolaryngology Prices

Laryngectomy Total Price $2,850

Posted by: the cost of getting Zouk to SHUT UP | August 2, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Although I support Barack Obama and will do all that I can to see him elected , I do realize that, whatever happens, we will all be better off. It will be Hillary or Barack in the white house. Our country is a great country that has suffered from very poor leadership.I have friends that I speak to regularly in Spain,Poland,Chile,Norway,Canada and a few other countries. This year every single one of them has asked me "what went wrong with the US ?" or something to that effect.We have lost alot of credibility out there due to this scandal plagued administration and its transparent schemes.
I think Barack said it best when he said "When this current administration steps down from office the entire world will breath a sigh of relief." Barack is leading a revolution in this country and the recent polls in New Hampshire and So. Carolina plus his consistant domination of straw polls in diverse places are indicators of better things to come. We are all waiting to exhale. Go Barack !

Posted by: eSPO | August 2, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Did we deliberately give weapons to the Viet Cong while we were still in Vietnam?"

Judge, actually we did, but they were going under the ARVN and Regional/Popular Forces names when we gave them the weapons.

Posted by: NonP | August 2, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I will make a wager that the majority of the people who have commented on this article have not read or watched Obama's speech. The speech was impressive and eloquent. The media...the echo chamber of idiocy has pushing the "obama wants to invade Pakistan" BS. Obama simple stated a policy that all presidential candidates have but are too weak in the knees to articulate. I hope people see past another media smear campaign. Read the speech. Watch the speech. Don't fall prey to the bias of others. Obama is what this country needs.

Posted by: sahmadi | August 2, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

No, ignoring the trolls is what makes Washington fail. You fail to recognize the reality that is around us. People are dying, and its time to stop the BS sugar coating of issues. Everything is fair game. In another decade, the Internet will mainstream the ideas that the corporate media never wanted the people to hear. Just you wait. It will be awesome.

Posted by: ignore who? | August 2, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Please ignore the authoritarian thought police who tell others how o blog. Nobody is stopping anybody from express their views. Moderating this site is not necessary. Unless you are scared of what's coming out. If you want to ignore me, that will nto save you. I am not a troll. I blog to bring light to ignored issues. Ignore the thought police. We are a free country. The gop hasn't burned the constitution just yet

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - President Bush ridiculed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday for saying that the $22 billion that separates Democrats in Congress and the White House on spending bills is a "very small difference." "Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference," Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet. Bush's tough talk in the steamy Rose Garden was his latest attempt to frame his side of the debate with the Democratic-led Congress

Posted by: the cost of Nancy's suit | August 2, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Judge, thanks for the link. And SoCo AL - I like Biden too. Whether or not he can step it up, I hope he remains actively engaged.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who want a preview of what will be grossly wrong with Petraues' statements in September search for "MICHAEL WARE" at and read his comments. Incredible. We are buying short term stability in Iraq by increasing the size of the bloodbath that will occur after we leave. This is even stupider than the initial invasion itself. Did we deliberately give weapons to the Viet Cong while we were still in Vietnam?

For those of you who think that everything's just rosy in Iraq, you can selectively quote Ware's comments or just simply go back to sleep.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 2, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I think it's important to note that Joe Biden has had his plan for changing course in Iraq online for quite some time. It was first revealed in an op-ed in the New York Times in May of '06. I don't know why the mainstream media ignores Biden. He's by far the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field. What disqualifies him from being the nominee? What happened in '88? He's smarter and more honest than the rest of the field, and I don't think there's a Republican on the planet that can beat him in a debate. We need the media to stop talking up the "Big 3." I'm an Edwards and Obama fan and supporter, but Biden is in close running with the two of them in my view. Just because he doesn't have the money they do or the standing in the polls, which are pointless at this point, people will change there minds, doesn't mean you shouldn't give him coverage.

Posted by: Soco Amaretto Lime | August 2, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

And in re: "Clinton, by contrast faces few doubts about her experience in office and her ability to engage at the highest levels on policy matters."

Oh really? Color me extremely doubful. She's done nothing - NOTHING - impressive on a national level since the failure of health care in the early '90s. And for the last time, her experience in office is 1.5 Senate terms. More than Obama on a national level, but less overall. Being Bill's wife in the '90s COUNTS FOR NOTHING.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 2, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Please ignore the trolls. That is the only way they will go away. Do not engage them in any way.

Posted by: Zookeepress | August 2, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it starnge the war hawks who are defending the iraq decision and are pumping war with Iran, are not doing the same in regards to pakistan (where the real enemy is. I know they have nukes but so does india (right next door). like Bokonon said, if they are a freidn to the us, where are the results, why not let us clean out the terrorists? The reason is they are not OUR freinds (as americans) they are freinds with certain individuals as is the saudi's. That is choosing an outside influence against your country. That is waging war with AMERICA's enemies, while psoing as patriots. That is treason people. That is benidict arnold. That is a traitor. That is the current gop. Those that continue to support traitors,a re traitors themselves.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"if they are trying that hard and they haven't managed to get bin Ladin 6 years after he attacked us-- then they are perhaps incompetent, wouldn't you say"

I tried, I failed - bill clinton I was busy lying about interns and couldn't come to the phone.

Hey drindl, how long did it take for Janet reno to find the unabomber? Hint - his brother turned him in.

Posted by: Reid my Libs | August 2, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Look what happens when the Vice President fails to clear his statements with himself in his branch of the Government.

No he's gotten the President involved in the tempest in the teapot.

Posted by: NonP | August 2, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Fred | August 2, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Well said Geroge. Obama gore 08 :)

Hillary is more of the same. I'm gald obama called her on it. She is part of the yale plan

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

And to everyone critical of Obama's suggestion in re: Pakistan, PLEASE try to divorce partisanship from your assessment of it.

1. If Pakistan is to be our ally in real life, it is not unreasonable to ask them to do sth effective - alone or with help - about our REAL enemy.
2. If Pakistan is unwilling to do so, it is not unreasonable for us to expect that they will allow us to do so.
3. We can negotiate with nationalist groups like Hamas, or with nations like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. We cannot negotiate with nihilists like AQ. Curious that Bush is determined to flex US muscle with the groups for whom negotiation is a possibility, but was unwilling to require a supposed US ally to support us in our pursuit of bin Laden in 2001.
4. Finally, Obama did not preclude diplomacy with Pakistan. He merely is expressing what I think is a refreshing recognition of who our real enemy is, and of the real-life uses to which military power should be put. Perhaps less of a shocking'n'awesome GI Joe approach, but at least to my mind more effective in addressing the roots of the real problem.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 2, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions.

Let's be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000.

A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program.

None of the combatants' are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.'s and Canada's. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status -- the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line.

Posted by: coburn | August 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

NonP - dropped in for a few minutes and read your post about the Sakonnet River Bridge in the other thread. Tiverton is my home town and I am old enough to remember when it opened (59 I think). I can even remember going over the Old Stone Bridge.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 2, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I know that no one will agree with me on this, as everyone seems to be taking one side or the other, but I just want to say that I am proud that, for the first time in my adult lifetime, two possible presidential candidates from the Democratic Party are putting out such truly impressive plans and strategies for how they would approach a variety of foreign policy issues. Clinton and Obama are just doing a fantastic job of stirring up the debate and offering us alternatives to the Bush-Cheney strategy of "isolate and berate", which has failed miserably.
Kudos to both Clinton and Obama for giving long time Democrats something to look forward to.

Posted by: George Skirkanich | August 2, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Lest you think that they were nothing but a $7 million right-wing RSS feeder, the fine folks at Pajamas Media have published some Deep Thoughts from Rudy Giuliani about the kind of judges he'd appoint to the federal courts. Obviously, a site of this caliber wouldn't bother to publish something consisting merely of the most mind-numbing banalities. And fortunately, Rudy doesn't disappoint.

First, you'll be surprised to know that he feels that the best judges are "interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench," hence distinguishing him for all of the candidates from both parties, who are always talking about how judges should just ignore the law entirely and just make stuff up. But if that's not enough, he says that he will appoint "strict constructionist judges" and will oppose "frivolous lawsuits" (note: guarantee void in the case of Robert Bork). I think I'd have to consider the Republican race virtually over; nobody else has a chance against a candidate with such strikingly fresh ideas.

The only good thing to come out of reading something with a higher density of cliches than the songbooks of Bryan Adams and Lenny Kravitz put together is that it gives me another pretext to remind us of William Rehnquist's gratifyingly candid definition of the otherwise virtually meaningless term "strict constructionism": "a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs."

Indeed. So even if Giulani's thoughts were written by a computer programmed to randomly select sentences from a collection of "most over-used and vacuous Republican talking points about courts," at least he's telling the truth!

Posted by: scott | August 2, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, proud, if they are trying that hard and they haven't managed to get bin Ladin 6 years after he attacked us-- then they are perhaps incompetent, wouldn't you say? Or perhaps their leadership. Donald Rumsfeld, with his goal of privatizing everything, has pretty much broken the military.

I don't blame the troops, but there's just not enough of them to do the job. They let bin Ladinn escape at ToraBora -- and you know it. And perhaps you didn't realize it, but the initiative to find him was defunded long ago, and money redirected to Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | August 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

'Many Republicans have lined up with Democrats in defiance of Bush to back the SCHIP expansion in the Senate.'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bad news for Dems is good for US

It's tough being a member of Congress. Even if you're in the majority, as is Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said "progress is being made" by U.S. military forces in Iraq; "We are on the offensive and we have the momentum," he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and she walked out.

There was "only so much" she could take, she explained, so she "had to leave the room ... after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to." She said she was worried, too, that General Keane's remarks "will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country." Hey, that could happen!

Lucky for Rep. Boyda, Congress in August goes on vacation. One hopes she can rest and recover, while blocking out any unwelcome and divisive news about American military successes in Iraq resulting from the new strategy being pursued by Gen. David Petraeus and his troops.

For example, let's hope she never hears what General Petraeus' top deputy, Lieutenant Gen. Ray Odierno, recently reported: A "growing list of cities" that until recently were under al-Qaeda control have now been "liberated." General Odierno added that "greater than 50 percent of Baghdad is currently in control of coalition or Iraqi security forces. ... I can think of no major population center in Iraq that is an al Qaeda safe haven today."

If Rep. Boyda is careful about which television stations she watches, she need never learn who is primarily responsible for the carnage in Iraq. Fox News' Chris Wallace recently asked General Petraeus if most of the violence is the result of a Sunni-Shia civil war. The general replied that, in fact, it is al-Qaeda that is "carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car bomb attacks, suicide vest attacks, and so forth....all of the individuals in the intelligence community, General [Stanley] McChrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command, all of us feel that the central front of al Qaeda's terror war is focused on Iraq."

Nor does she need to know that, according to Brigadier General Mick Bednarek, in Iraq today "al Qaeda is on the run... We are going into places that the coalition has not had the sufficient troop strength and force size to go before, and we're going after them, and they will not find safe haven in this country."

With a little effort, the congresswoman can remain ignorant of the likely consequences should Congress force the administration to withdraw American troops before their mission is completed. Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told CNN's Jamie McIntyre: "Those surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy, and the enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. ... If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away ... if you did that'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing a sanctuary ... Over time we can turn the area over to Iraqi security forces, and then we'll be ready to do something that looks like a withdrawal. ... People keep wanting to put a timeframe on this. It's just not possible."

Surely you can see how possession of such information would make it more difficult for Congresswoman Boyda to do her job -- second-guessing military commanders? And she's right that such information can divide Americans. It might even stimulate serious debate -- a frightening thought.

As House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested this week, success in Iraq also would be awkward for those who have bet their political chips on American failure.

To be precise, Clyburn said that it would be "a real big problem for us" should General Petraeus return to Washington next month and present a positive report on progress in Iraq. Moderate Democrats might listen and decide that for America to be defeated in Iraq by al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias is neither inevitable nor in the national interest. These same moderate Democrats also might decide that, for them, the national interest trumps the partisan interest.

If Congressman Boyda were to hear that, she wouldn't leave the room - they'd have to carry her out.

Posted by: cliff | August 2, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP, then why did Bush let him get away in 2001? Why haven't we been pursuing a full-court press in Afghanistan and Pakistan ever since? We both know that the answer is that Bush decided it would be better for his popularity and better TV to go with "shock'n'awe" in Iraq. After all, how hard could it be to topple Saddam, and, after cleaning up the flowers and "welcome" gifts, to stand by as Iraqis established the modern, secular democracy we all knew they had always wanted?

Yeah. Six years later, Saddam, who never - as the intelligence made clear at the time - posed a real threat, has been replaced by insurgents (including a growing AQ-in-Iraq presence which BUSH ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH ITSELF through his incompetence) who do.
And bin Laden is hangin' out in his cave in Pakistan. And he's laughin'....

Posted by: Bokonon | August 2, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat"

And you wonder why I hate the gop so much. You people are a joke to independant thinkers. Don't you think it has anything to do with reasons or execution. You propogandsit will get yours. Elevtion time coems and the gop is back in the basement for a generation

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Sure enough, within four minutes of the news breaking nationally at 7:32 pm ET on the Fox News Channel"

I personally haven't heard anyone blame this on bush. Personally I haven't. I did turn on fox for less than five seconds to hear their take. As soon as they mentioned 9/11, I turned the channel

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army General John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus' new offensive has turned the tide against al-Qaida and insurgents alike. "We are on the offensive and have the momentum," said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al-Qaida losing ground in Sunni areas.

This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."

On "NBC Nightly News" last week, anchor Brian Williams ignored the column by O'Hanlon and Pollack and instead focused on "a draft U.S. report," saying "there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government." ABC's Terry McCarthy apparently didn't receive, or ignored, the Democratic talking points when he said of the O'Hanlon-Pollack column on "World News Tonight," "the report tracks fairly closely with what we're seeing." David Martin on "CBS Evening News" reported on July 31, "With one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February."

NBC News notwithstanding, these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS, ABC (and in The New York Times) must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, who flipped on her "favorite" baseball team when it became politically expedient to do so, will have a tough time selling the line, "I believed in victory from the beginning."

Posted by: cal | August 2, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama gore 08

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Leftist dementia: Blaming Bush & GOP for Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
Peter Barry Chowka
When I heard the news late Wednesday afternoon PT about the Minnesota Interstate 35W bridge collapse, after the initial shock and sadness for the victims, one of my first thoughts was that the Left would try to score points and blame the tragedy on President Bush and the Republicans.

Sure enough, within four minutes of the news breaking nationally at 7:32 pm ET on the Fox News Channel, the initial discussion thread about it at Daily Kos was already collecting comments

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

proud, the effort to go after bin Laden pales in comparison to what has been done/wasted since the President was convinced that it was his mission to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.

drindl hit the nail on the head on this and you know it.

Posted by: NonP | August 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

At no point in his speech did Obama say he would start a war with Pakistan. He did say that if Pakistan refused to take action on credible intelligence of those who plotted 9/11 and continue to plot attacks against us, he would take action. Considering the domestic political situation in Pakistan, where Musharraf does not have the political or military support to engage the terrorists, Musharraf would not likely strongly object to such action by the United States (as he has not in the past few years when we have occasionally crossed into Pakistan).

Posted by: thethinker | August 2, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

That old goat Obama ( the queda one, not the Dem) has been dead for months. Do you clueless Libs think the war is over now? you can go back to your lattes.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse


Well, Bush is asserting Executive Privilege again.

I really, really want someone in the press corps to ask the following question that should pull the carpet from under his feet:

"Please describe the type of 'candid advice' that you say Executive Privilege is necessary for. We assume that the advice is not security-classified (since it would already be blocked) and that the advice given is not illegal."

Posted by: roo | August 2, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"I would say cue the fat lady but the sight of Hillary's knees will blind you."

I wasn't looking that low.

Posted by: NonP | August 2, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

drindl "What ever happened to 'dead or alive'? The Bush administration scarcely lifted a finger to get bin Ladin."

OMG drindl, that is such a mischaracterization of the serious, unrelenting efforts by our military and intelligence communities to get Bin Laden. Although never publicly acknowledged, Pakistan has permitted CIA teams to secretly operate inside Pakistan for many months now. We're using some of the newest tecnology we've got, like the Predator strikes, as well as covert and other operations.

I think the men and women on the ground would consider their extremely hard work more than "lifting a finger" in the hunt for OBL. Of course it is frustrating to all Americans that this murderer has not been captured or killed, but I'm so tired of liberal trying to say that nothing's being done, when that is so far from the truth.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 2, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

'To help pay for the SCHIP increase, Democrats dipped into federal payments to Medicare HMOs, which drive up premiums for the elderly in traditional Medicare by inflating the cost of care. Officials estimate the government pays an average of 12 percent more to these private plans than it does for traditional coverage.'

Here's the truth about government payments to private insurers -- they charge more to provide the same services than medicare does. it's a total ripoff.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama gave a great speech yesterday! He is the type of leader that America needs today: bold, direct, honest, knowledgeable and very experienced. He speech showed a lot of guts. I'm proud of him. Most of the negative comments on this board are written by "in the pocket" posters who never took the time to read this powerful 13 page speech which put forth a comprehensive plan to address the growing problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Obama is now the clear cut leader and favorite among the Democratic candidates; everyone else is simply following in his footsteps:

Interestingly, one candidate who seemed to find agreement with Obama was Clinton. "Clinton said in a radio interview later in the day that she also would not hesitate to attack Al Qaeda targets on Pakistani territory. 'If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America,' Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks."

Edwards seemed to agree with him, too. "'We have a responsibility to go find al Qaeda and (Osama) bin Laden wherever they operate,' Edwards said after a fundraiser in San Francisco, appearing to agree with Obama's call during a major foreign policy speech in Washington for possible U.S. military action in Pakistan against terrorists hiding there. Edwards said that if Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can't control such operatives, 'we have to do it.'"

Obama in '08! He's a true leader! Everyone else is simply Obama-Lite!!

Posted by: Sarah | August 2, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

'The House yesterday approved legislation expanding a federal health insurance program for the children of the working poor, shrugging off a fresh veto threat from President Bush and the fierce opposition of House Republicans.'

Yes, republicans are absolutely TERRIFIED of the idea that the children of the working poor should have health insurance -- they might survive childhood and vote for Democrats!

How Republicans loathe the 'little people' the hard-working, struggling middle class. How they try to undermine them in every way.

Posted by: Marin | August 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Did you hear about OUR military companies arming our biggest competitor right now, china. Bush is allying with not only our enemies but the terrorists.

Why do think so many people think he was responsible for 9/11? It's not rocket science. Bush and the gop really thought the american people were stupid. That or he thought they had such a strong hold on the media that they wouldn't report it. Or the people that he cared about would think he could stoop that low. It is becoming obvious now. Get out of your caves gop'ers. You are backing a known terrorsit and traitor to the country. YOu know this. Follwo the walrus to the feeding at your own perile. Get out of the cave

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Barack is toast:

The possible Clinton Tsunami Tuesday wave is reflected in her wide leads in national polls. The Rasmussen Report declared on Monday, "Democrats will nominate Clinton unless Barack Obama can show them a definitive reason to change their mind" and that "Obama needs a knock-out punch because Clinton will win the bout on points." Their July 30 weekly poll among likely Democratic primary voters polled Clinton at 41% and Obama 24%. A national Diageo/Hotline poll among registered Democratic voters gave Clinton a 9% winning margin over Obama.

Go here for the polling breakdown. I would say cue the fat lady but the sight of Hillary's knees will blind you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Are you worried the nation's infrastructure is crumbling?
Yes 67% 20484
No 33% 10176

Posted by: cnn poll | August 2, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

After being called clueless last week B. husain Obama decides to get tough. Reminds me of another silly liberal in a tank:

He's done. Hello Hillary.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 2, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"I'm rooting for Al Qaida. If those nut jobs want to kill our crooked "leaders",

i HEAR YOU MIKE. THEY ARE NOT KILLINGOUR LEADERS. tHEY ARE KILLING CITIZENS LIKE YOU AND ME. yOU KNWO WAHT i THINK, IN REGARDS TO BUSH AND SAUDI ARABIA. So getting Bin Laden would be hurting Bush and his buddies. Getting the terrorists means getting some gop'ers. Not all. The saboturs, selling the country out, killing americans. Did you hear about the deal to arm the saudi's with our hishest weapons? this after bin laden being a saudi. This after a high number of attackers being saudi's. Bush doesn't want bin laden. He is trying to get his party elected by used bin laden as a tool to put fear in america. They say bin laden's greatest propoganda puppet is Bush. He's giving bin laden more credibility and power than he really has. Trying to do it as a recruiting tool. I want a safer america and world too. But how do we do that? We point out those making us less safe and marginalize them. Marginalize the gop and the war-hawks. Marginalize n korea and bin laden. marginalize iran. As opposed to bush who is impowering all these people.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is it the gopers don't want to go after our real enemies, or protect our ports and borders? Do they WANT another attack? I honestly beleive they do.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand infront of a tele-prompter and read it, too!

Unfortunately for Obama, the debates illustrated that he's as clueless with regards to how to respond to a terrorist attack as he is with regards to Presidential diplomacy.

Posted by: JoeCHI | August 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

'Obama = big nothing. Invading Pakistan? What the hell is he thinking?'

That's where Osama bin Ladin is.. planning another attack. Everyone knows this. Perhaps an outright invasion is not needed. Perhaps a black ops kind of thing--but why shouldn't we take out bin Ladin after what we did?

What ever happened to 'dead or alive'? The Bush administration scarcely lifted a finger to get bin Ladin.

We have real enemies in hte world and we always have. And right now MOST of them are in hte tribal areas of Afghaistan and Pakistan.

We need REAL leaders who will go after our REAL enemies -- instead of privatizers and profiteers who are only interesedt in oil and huge, unaccountable no-bid contracts.

Posted by: drindl | August 2, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Re: General Obama -Apart from the notion that it would be as hard to distinguish civilians in a Waziristan from terrorists as it is in Iraq, which the senator has written off, other questions arise.

As a US Senator why not now introduce an October 11, 2002-type resolution, authorizing such an invasion? Or why hasn't he in the past?

"And what were his reactions to our prior Predator strike on al Qaeda notables inside Pakistan? -approval, criticism, or mere silence?"

Meanwhile, over in Iowa... a report in the Quad City Times says "Obama's hawkish speech doesn't thrill local Democrats"

"A longtime observer of the state's caucuses said talking tough on foreign policy might help Obama nationally, where he trails Clinton in the polls, but it could work against his anti-war message in the state.

"I don't think that people want another war," said Dave Nagle of Waterloo, the former Iowa Democratic Party chairman."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: the truth | August 2, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

rufus, you're all for "...going after the terrorist"? I'm not. I'm rooting for them. The way I see it, the Democrats aren't going to do one thing to rid us of George Bush or Dick Cheney or AG Gonzales. What we get are Democarts like Kennedy, cozying up to Bill Gates, adding riders to bills to INCREASE the number of guest workers, taking Amercian jobs, we get Hillary Clinton as part owner of the largest outsourcing firm in the country, and we get Democrats falling all over each other making absolutely insane comments about invading Pakistan just to show how tough they are. Me? I'm rooting for Al Qaida. If those nut jobs want to kill our crooked "leaders", I'd be willing to pay good money to watch it happen. I just want them to leave our troops and ordinary people aloone. Maybe we could arrange some sort of gladiator ring. How does Bush vs. Osama sound? Let 'em go after each other with rusty swords.
Seriously, I am sick to death of this whole "terrorist" thing. It never was anything more than a ploy to frighten voters. It was disguesting and harmful when Bush played the fear and smear card and it isn't an improvment watching the Democrats play the same game. When did the land of the free and the home of the brave become a nation of cowards and bedwetters? Thomas Jefferson would be ahsamed at what we have become.

Posted by: MikeB | August 2, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The reason kerry and dean say good thing s for the gop at the right time. The reason liebvernam flipped. THE YALE PLAN

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Posted by: the reason for the kerry and dean screw ups | August 2, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Interesting column and more interesting speech by Obama yesterday. He may be better off not making them. Clearly the naive appelation that Hillary pinned on him last week was shown again in his speech when he said he would send troops into a sovereign nation with or without their permission. That is tantamount to invading another country. There had better be a lot of behind the scenes diplomacy and work with our allies before we do that again.

The head of the Council on Foreign Relations among other groups and those versed in foreign policy pretty unanimously questioned Obama on a policy that coud easily destabilze Pakistan and asked whether he had a plan for what would happen if Musharif is gone? All indications are that would be much worse for us if that happened.

Obama time and time again shows us why he is just not ready to be President. I think the bump Hillary Clinton got in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll to a lead of 21% over Obama is a signal that the public understands that.

Posted by: peter dc | August 2, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama = big nothing. Invading Pakistan? What the hell is he thinking?

H. Clinton has much more knowledge and experience.

Posted by: Sandy | August 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Clinton, by contrast faces few doubts about her experience in office and her ability to engage at the highest levels on policy matters."

Why? I know I'm in the minority, but I certainly have doubts about her 'experience' in office. Why the majority doesn't share these doubts is beyond me. I'd like to see this subject covered by some good old investigative journalism.

Posted by: bsimon | August 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Remember that, unlike the political junkies who traffic on this site..."

Ouch, CC! I prefer "politically aware citizens." Unlike REAL junkies, this country would be a LOT better off if there were more of us. And your readership would improve dramatically.

Having said that your overall point is well taken. As everyone keeps trying to tell you (for about a year now according to my recollection) and the rest of the MSM it's awfully darn early. Although it is personally frustrating to anyone that relies on information supplied by a candidate to generate a column/blog about that candidate, Obama has wisely chosen slow-and-steady as a strategy. He needs to since his organization clearly has a lot of kinks that need to be worked out.

I'm not sure HRC can generate 'sizzle.' Sullivan's column (yes, I'm posting the link again reveals why but, hey, good luck with that!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 2, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

We have the opportunity to say there is no leadership in either party when we are presented with warmongers who cannot begin to talk the language of peace and prosperity for the world, and respect and tolerance for all religions and a committment to the honor of the sovereignty of the Middle East Countries.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee is changing its colors to something much more grotesque than Tweedledum and Tweedledee as a description of the FAT CAT CORRUPT CORPORATE POLITICAL PARTIES currently dominating the United States and dishonoring the proper affirmative democracy by the PEOPLE at a MAJORITY LEVEL.

Cannot vote for Nader? In 2000 Gore would take Nader's votes from him, while offering the copycat behavior already demonstrated. Money rules them. Principle escapes them.

Kerry, he may have less of a clue than Bush.

Texans have heard the NO CLUE accusation.

It goes deeper than the silver spoon in the mouth as an excuse. That was levied against Papa Bush.

Now, its time for real Democracy to show this country can show outrage against the corrupt unprincipled powermongers. The country can vote for their truth of who is for the public interest at a majority RULE.

Money and war in red ink, trillions deep and offered as a new platform as if strength is horrific.

Posted by: Goldpost | August 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

anyone saying obama is flipping or not representing ME and others is lying. The execution has been the problem. I'm all for going after the terrorist. I'm am against occupying a country and stealing their natural resources, I am against that. I am against paying the country housing our #1 enemy and getting ne results. I am against that.

Obama saying he will go after the terrorist is what should be happening. Him saying no options are off the table in regards to iran or anyone else, is true. If people are pointing nukes around, they must be stopped. The problem with the last 8 years has been the exectution.

Bin Laden has survived long enough. This is getting ridiculous now.

Posted by: rufus | August 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris -

Way back in March, a different Wag the Blog on Obama and Substance tended toward the same conclusion you're rolling out now. Here's the old March post:

Your blog is a better predictor than InTrade! :) Congratulations!

Posted by: Golgi | August 2, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company