Siun @ 97

HRC is spouting all of Bush’s lies on Iran!!!!

anyone need another reason to not support her?

Siun, Did you catch Edward’s speech at the Herzliya Conference??

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0123.html

“”I feel that I understand on a very personal level those threats. The challenges in your own backyard – rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel.

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel’s border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.

I cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap. Syria needs to go long way to prove it is ready for peace. It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.

My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. For example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.“

Follow on sheep! Baaahhhh! Baaaahhh!

I love how you fail to bold some pretty importatn stuff: like–

For example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

demi @ 257

On who is sincere or playing…that gets to be a personal perspective. I believe Edwards is sincere. …

Just realized what it is for me with Edwards (who most days I would like to see as the Dem candidate) – the accent, and my associations with the accent, and personal reactions to people who appear to have a lot of charm. Hard for me to believe someone can be that charming and also sincere.

Prejudices, in other words.

Maybe that’s why Obama and Clinton were faking a Southern accent when they talked at Southerners. They wanted those people to relate to them without that filter of prejudice. But, can you then say they were sincere?

…
Clinton, I am running for president of the entire country (in answer to Wolf’s statement that she is a divider.) …

Well, aren’t they all?

However, if she’s saying she isn’t a Democrat, but a Demopendentpublican, then maybe she should pull out of the primary and run as an Independent, you know, for all the people.

Somehow I don’t think she’s going to do that. She’ll run as a Democrat because she was with Bill all those years while he ran as a Democrat. She’s still a Goldwater girl, but she’ll pretend to be a Dem until she’s got the nomination and then she’ll appear to be just as Republican as Rudy.
Fern @ 270

demi @ 257

On who is sincere or playing…that gets to be a personal perspective. I believe Edwards is sincere. That’s the way I see him. Some people find Obama charismatic. It works for them. It doesn’t work for me.
So, I’m saying beyond what the candidates say about issues, there are other factors, some almost nonverbal.

Just realized what it is for me with Edwards (who most days I would like to see as the Dem candidate) – the accent, and my associations with the accent, and personal reactions to people who appear to have a lot of charm. Hard for me to believe someone can be that charming and also sincere.

Prejudices, in other words.

…
Hills accused Obama of raising taxes. It was a cheap shot. Disingenuous pandering to conservatives on Hills part.

Triangulation in action!

…

… HRC is a more consummate strategic thinker.

Hillary has a lead by virtue of name recognition and tons of money to run t.v. ads.

So, she campaigns to not let her opponents differentiate themselves and yet to word her statements such that at the end of the day it’s like a tangled plate of spaghetti that doesn’t really mean anything.

She leaves her options open so well that if she gets the nomination and runs in the general election she’ll still sound unspecific. Then if she wins she will be free to do anything at all. Nobody will know what she stands for, though many will think they did when they voted for her.

Can you say buyer’s remorse?

Obama has tried to copy Edwards speeches and tone, but it doesn’t fit him as well as his suits. He also tends to answer questions like John Kerry (long-winded and confusing).

Edwards has been direct to the point and specific. You can bank on it.

I prefer Edwards.

Slothrop @ 61

No.

Might be.. if the wingnuts are right and she is a commie, soci*l*st, pinko..someone is going to be wrong about Hillary.. but who?

I’ve never heard of a pinko commie socialist Goldwater girl before.

I know MY reaction is when Edwards and Obama really get their digs in on Hillary, it makes me mad and I feel like I should be defending her.

may not be fair, I don’t think is working in their favor.

That’s the effect of identity politics.

what is there about Hillary you like? If you like someone you don’t want them taken down, even for valid reasons.

Isn’t it fair to question someone’s methods, character, motivations, truthiness and so on? Aren’t those things we’ve all seen as very important in past presidents?

I see that as essential as their positions on issues. After all, there are a lot of things which pass a president’s desk that we, the public, never even see. How could we judge them on every issue when we aren’t even aware of many of them?

So, judge them on character, intelligence, experience, records, their background, the coherence of their policy suggestions, their ability to present it to the public and so on.

Hillary is great at presenting and has a fantastic campaign team behind her. So did Reagan.

So, if you vote for her because of gender or presentation then you’re still nowhere.

You’ve got to look at the whole package. And, to do that, you have to be willing to let the other candidates ask probing questions and make accusations about her weaknesses. The same goes for other candidates. As I understand it Obama has received a lot of that of late too. I don’t see him calling the race card (”They’re just attacking me because of skin color.”) No, he’s taking the attacks and fighting back, as we would want. Why does Hillary use the gender card?

Do I complain when someone wonders about Edwards position on Iran? No, I wonder what he’s going to say on the issue too. Does that mean he’s unelectable? Of course not. Every candidate is a package of many things and it’s the whole person who must be considered. Who knows, maybe Edwards knows something about Iran that we don’t.

Now, what I want to know on policy is, did Hillary convince Sptizer to drop his driver’s license plan just to please her?

Did Hillary’s campaign convince people to boo Edwards? That would be unfair, right?

Can she take the heat or just promise to pile it on Bushies (who won’t be around in 1/09 anyway)?

Dennis Kucinich was the only real person on the stage tonight. He continues to be the only real candidate that speaks the truth on the occupation of Iraq, the patriot act, trade with China, NAFTA, universal health care and impeachment. If we want a better America, people need to wake up and vote Kucinich into office. Otherwise it’s just more of the same old, same old and we’ll get the corporate government that we deserve.

right on. and notice how much time he got to speak.
the power brokers want him shut up and shut up good.