Haven’t seen any of it yet this year, but in past years, their tendency has been to make up for the zillions of articles with no meaningful coverage of the issues with one enormous multi-page in-depth look at each candidate, which is kinda like having to eat a year’s worth of vegetables in one meal.

And then after that, they can say, “Hey look, we gave you what you said you wanted, and you’re still griping. Guess we can’t please you, no matter what we do.” (This was their response paraphrased when I called them up about this a few election cycles back.)

TomR — People have been spamming that in the comments the last few days. We’ve all seen it several times over. Thanks. And if this seems snippy, it’s only because I’ve seen this very same cut and paste in our comments for the last few days…and seeing the same thing over and over and over, be it short or long, gets really, really old after a while.

Sorry Christy. I don’t recall posting this comment before on FDL, but I’ll take your word for it. These are my own words and you may have seen them on other websites.

- Tom & FTF

She must be hankerin’ for our foul, nasty attention.

Cinnamonape@136

I have tried repeatedly to get an answer out of the Edwards campaign as to what he meant at Herzliya, and have recounted that effort here previously. My last shot was with Elizabeth herself and a highlighted copy of the actual speech.

I do not know what to make of the lack of response, so I get to make up something. It is this: Edwards is deeply concerned with domestic issues, and if this were going to be an election mostly concerned with those issues, he would be getting more traction.

I do not think he’s knows much about foreign policy, and the speech to Herzliya was probably just an effort to show support for Israel. It was odd that he did it and no other Dem candidate did, and that he said such provocative things. Either he believes them, in which case he has said many inconsistent things since, or it was a rookie mistake.

Obama made a similar mistake in saying that he supported designating the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, which I told him to his face about a month ago. None of the frontrunners has depth in foreign policy. They are not “experienced.” Biden is. I think that is why you can’t get a coherent position out of the things that Edwards has said, and why Clinton seems to be always veering around like a sail trying to find the wind.

I hate to say this, but Edwards isn’t a “rookie” at this game. It’s his second Presidential campaign, and he also ran as Kerry’s VEEP. And while he certainly didn’t vote to condemn the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds as “terrorists”…it’s clear that he probably would have judging from this speech. The speech is only 6 months old…and yet he seems to be telling the Israelis one thing, and the folks on the Campaign trail another. It’s hypocritical to charge Clinton with being a hawk in Congress and a dove on the camapaign trail when he’s doing essentially the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..wards_iran

And if he’s trying to make the Israelis happy ,and through them A*P*C and other pro-Zionist groupsin the US) then isn’t that pandering to a particular audience?

I’m hardly an expert in the Middle East imbroglio myself…but I would never call Sharon “heroic”. I’d call him a war-criminal…or simply not mention him at all. If Edwards, after 6 years in the Senate, can’t do anything more than spout the talking points of those who used WMD’s to get us into Iraq….then lord help us.

Edwards needs to repudiate that speech, which did as much to “endorse” the sabre-rattling against Iran now being used by Cheney, as the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution.

I have tried repeatedly to get an answer out of the Edwards campaign as to what he meant at Herzliya, and have recounted that effort here previously. My last shot was with Elizabeth herself and a highlighted copy of the actual speech.

I do not know what to make of the lack of response, so I get to make up something. It is this: Edwards is deeply concerned with domestic issues, and if this were going to be an election mostly concerned with those issues, he would be getting more traction.

I do not think he’s knows much about foreign policy, and the speech to Herzliya was probably just an effort to show support for Israel. It was odd that he did it and no other Dem candidate did, and that he said such provocative things. Either he believes them, in which case he has said many inconsistent things since, or it was a rookie mistake.

Obama made a similar mistake in saying that he supported designating the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, which I told him to his face about a month ago. None of the frontrunners has depth in foreign policy. They are not “experienced.” Biden is. I think that is why you can’t get a coherent position out of the things that Edwards has said, and why Clinton seems to be always veering around like a sail trying to find the wind.

Scarecrow, you call Biden a “blowhard” and you said in the last thread that he hasn’t said anything coherent about Pakistan.

I offer two comments in reply:

First, the “blowhard” meme is one that appears frequently, and is duly repeated in the comments section here, or at Daliy Kos and similar venues, without anyone ever explaining why talking about critical issues makes you a blowhard. To the extent that this word is picked up and repeated in our own progressive echo chamber I think we are doing what we accuse the wingnuts of doing: making personal attacks rather than deal with issues, and repeating an insult until it just sounds true.

It just says that there are people on our side who don’t like Biden for whatever good reasons they may have, and so he is attacked with a familiar bit of namecalling. I don’t like it.

It is like focusing on whether Hillary cackles, rather than on whether laughter is an appropriate response to the accusation that you just voted for war with Iran.

It is like wringing our hands over how much a haircut cost instead of exploring whether the Edwards populism comes from a genuine wellspring of belief.

Second, Biden is the only candidate carrying on a coherent discussion about Pakistan. He has doen more in the last week to try to defuse the dangerous situation there than the Bush administration. I admit that is not a high bar, but I do not think that you can fairly accuse Biden of not being substantive on this issue.

From a speech in New Hampshire:

America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis – and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come. Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago.

But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.

Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.

And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.

Exactly, Biden has repeatedly made efforts to grapple with the details of policy in the Middle East and South Asia that others have avoided lest it be a third rail. Other candidates voice platitudes. But at least Richardson and Biden have actually given coherent statements, and attacked certain mythologies about the region. And when one often examines the “soundbite” quotes that are used to portray him as either a “hawk” or, conversely, “an appeaser”…the complete context of his statements shows he really has made a statement that is much more nuanced than the soundbite.

Contrast that with John Edward’s Speech at Herzliya Conference

And recall how both Edwards, and Hillary, lambasted Obama for being willing to speak to Iran “without preconditions” (on either side).

Yet I have yet to see any major presentation in the debates by Edwards about precisely what his foreign policy would be towards Iran, Pakistan, Israel, etc.

Yes…he asserts that we will withdraw from Iraq…but given the above how would he maintain a force in the region that would be able to strike Iran and defend the regional players from the consequences? Oh, he has stated that he wants to maintain a “regional strike force” of several thousand in Kuwait…and that these would periodically be sent into Iraq to fight Al Qaida (and Iran?) if needed. He believes that other troops shifted to Afghanistan from Iraq would be sufficient “to mount expeditions”.

Of course if you send that strike force into Iraq..they’d have to actually establish a camp or base there to mount their operations. So they’d be “back in Iraq”.

So it seems that his position isn’t all that different from Clintons.

Murkasey is a distraction..it’s the Donald Kerr’s…the thousands of them that have to be stopped. They are hidden like termites, eating away at the foundation of our country.

Everything that happening is an outrage, but that can lead to political fatigue..just what the Thugs want. Repeating the idea that both parties are the same is the surest way to put us all behind the wire. The only outrage is not winning in ‘08.

no, they’re not the same. but you think the only outrage is the Ds not winning in ‘08 – then we are in fundamental disagreement. because i’m finding alot to be outraged by the Ds in congress right now.

I offer two comments in reply:

First, the “blowhard” meme is one that appears frequently, and is duly repeated in the comments section here, or at Daliy Kos and similar venues, without anyone ever explaining why talking about critical issues makes you a blowhard. To the extent that this word is picked up and repeated in our own progressive echo chamber I think we are doing what we accuse the wingnuts of doing: making personal attacks rather than deal with issues, and repeating an insult until it just sounds true.

It just says that there are people on our side who don’t like Biden for whatever good reasons they may have, and so he is attacked with a familiar bit of namecalling. I don’t like it.

It is like focusing on whether Hillary cackles, rather than on whether laughter is an appropriate response to the accusation that you just voted for war with Iran.

It is like wringing our hands over how much a haircut cost instead of exploring whether the Edwards populism comes from a genuine wellspring of belief.

Second, Biden is the only candidate carrying on a coherent discussion about Pakistan. He has doen more in the last week to try to defuse the dangerous situation there than the Bush administration. I admit that is not a high bar, but I do not think that you can fairly accuse Biden of not being substantive on this issue.

From a speech in New Hampshire:

America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis – and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come. Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago.

But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.

Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.

And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.

kdh22 @ 37

Moving the goalposts in advance of FISA vote…from HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..veillance/

Ya gotta love this:

…Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people’s private communications and financial information…

And when they don’t? Well, we’ll retroactively legislate indemnity for them.

This is an old fight. As I wrote in my grad thesis a decade ago:

Also fascinating that the Government feels exempt from the same limitations on PRIVACY that they would suject us to. These same officials feel they have the right to conceal their political meetings with lobbyists and businessmen from the Energy Companies. Bush and Cheney demand “Executive Privilege” which conceals their political activities…knowledge that is clearly relevant and critical to the American people. They conceal non-critical materials under the aegis of classification. They will conceal their acts for decades under the Presidential Order that allows a former President and VP to block the release of Presidential documents.

They use surrepticious meetings and phone calls to leak classified and erroneous materials to burgeon their case for war or attack opponents…hidden under the gauze of “source-reporter” privilege.

Congressmen place secret holds, or add anonymous riders to bills that may become our nations laws. Government proposals are kept secret and the Congress asked to decide on their merits without any knowledge of what the passage of the law might mean.

The names of and reasons why those held as “enemy combatants” are kept secret…denying them the capability of obtaining legal representation. The identities of their accusers are kept secret, and even the actions that they are accused of denied to the military lawyers appointed to them in secret tribunals.

Swiftboaters need not reveal their names on the very attack ads that they use on the public airwaves.

And this guy says we should sacrifice our NON-PUBLIC anonymity?

The State in the meantime acts to hide the identities of all those that run and manipulate this country. Lawbreakers remain anonymous and are immunized so that even the laws they broke will go unrevealed!