I’d like to see a debate where the background isn’t a variant of the American Flag. They should show the Constitution, highlighting certain amendments.

What a great idea!

But in her 2006 election campaign, Clinton received just over $37,000 from A*PAC-directed contributions.

In her political career, she’s received $56,000.

John Edwards has received no A*PAC-directed funds.

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

Levon – Elton John

MarkH@192:

I don’t for a moment believe that republicans want Hillary Clinton as their president. :o)

But the intelligent goopers who know that she’s their only chance to hang on to the white house, and to regain control of congress, sure as hell want her to run against.

Yeah, I have to agree there are plenty who likely see it that way too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBkbPEoeAI

Is Hillary saying she would like both diamonds and pearls triangulating? Or would she need to add in the emeralds for that?

Again, triangulation in action. Appearing to appeal to all people while not committing to anything unappealing.

Now, ask her if she likes cats or dogs, hotdogs or hamburgers, beer or soda pop. The list of questions like this is endless. You still won’t learn anything important about her. She won’t let you.

I don’t for a moment believe that republicans want Hillary Clinton as their president. :o)

But the intelligent goopers who know that she’s their only chance to hang on to the white house, and to regain control of congress, sure as hell want her to run against.

…
Check out how many times Edwards says “I will not take any response off the table” in this speech regarding Iran to many Israeli policy-makers (including Zionists Bibi Netanyahu, Natan Scharansky, etc.).

Edwards at Herzliya Conference in January 2007.

And if you read the above, it seems odd that he is attacking Clinton for voting for the Leiberman-Kyl Amendment. He says the same things REPEATEDLY in that speech.

… At least with Clintons views one doesn’t have to dig up well-concealed speeches made to Israeli power brokers. You won’t find a link to THAT speech on Johnnie’s web site!
…

Everybody calls Hillary either Hillary, Hill or HRC. What’s this “Johnnie” crap?

Second, does his saying something really equate with her voting in the Senate on something which will give Dubya some justification for going to war?

Third, just what is Senator Clinton’s position (or positions) on relations with Iran? Does she still stand by labeling them as terrorists?

Seems to me their positions are pretty similar: all options on the table, recognize the danger they pose in the region (not to America) and be prepared to push diplomacy very hard before considering any military option. Isn’t that a typical Democratic candidate’s position?

If you just want to bash Edwards you should say so. But, if you really want to discuss issues and positions you’d better be ready to back up your accusations (the one that implies Edwards is a liar or stupid or hypocritical).

The Democratic candidates have to take this stance vis a via Iran because they aren’t in the White House and don’t have current intel and have to ‘keep options on the table’. It’s the responsible position to take.

THAT is straight out of the republican’s (and Hillary’s) “Please-God-don’t-say-the-Iraq-word” playbook.

And if Edwards and Obama WERE guilty of “mudslinging” (and boy, is this getting tiresome from a candidate who isn’t outraged enough to sling any serious mud at george bush about the miserable, useless, war which she has YET to apologize for supporting) just think of what the republicans are going to do to her.

What I don’t understand is why none of the other candidates have brought up the electability issue. Of course, they’ve got 6 weeks to do it, before the first primary.

When that happens we WILL see some fur flying…and it SHOULD be flying. :o)

Every time ANYONE calls for “civility” or “unity”, it is NOTHING but a buzz-word for “please stop goring my favorite ox, which is to say, my butt…”

And we NEED oxen to be gored in this election.