Every time Clinton say something critical of the war and occupation in Iraq, just keep in mind that the candidate speaking it, has NEVER said that it was a mistake to invade, and she has NEVER apologized for her support of the invasion.

Keep in mind that until she saw the mid-term poll-writing on the wall, no piece of self-exculpatory bushCo shitspeak was too false for her to parrot.

Keep in mind that prior to discovering her inner antiwar self about the time of those mid-term polls, she had no qualms about schmoozing with FoxNews and Rupert Murdoch.

Keep in mind that in the Connecticut primary, she eagerly, freely, supported one of the worst of the jingoes, Joe Lieberman, against a good antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont.

As we watch her try to climb out of the GOP warpimp cesspit and crawl underneath the flap of the democrats antiwar tent, I’m more than willing to talk about “contradictions”. :o)

But, most Americans just listen to the “conventional” (Teevee) “wisdom.” And that says only Hillary can win.

This week, I spoke to some of my high school friends, living far away, in a red state. They “think” this way.

I told them, “I can’t stand Hillary.” (And it has nothing to do with Bill, or the notion that “I hate her, but I don’t know why.”) Oh yes, I know why I don’t like Hillary as a candidate and it has nothing to do with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton deal.

But, living in California (the largest, very diversified state), I have no chance. I never have. And that sucks. So, Iowa and some other goofy, whitebread state decides for us.

What is WRONG with America? Never mind, I know. And it ain’t pretty.

cinnamonape @ 156

I’m just pointing out that those who called Clinton a “Neo-Con” while praising Edwards have some contradictions that they need to deal with.

There are some significant differences especially among their foreign policy advisors. Hillary has, for example, Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, financed by Israeli multibillionaire, Haim Saban, who claims: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Also, Michael O’Hanlon, an alleged liberal war critic who happens to be an affiliate of the Saban Center and a signatory of PNAC’s Second Statement On Postwar Iraq,

We can go through lists of advisors and find people who are disreputable in all the campaigns. O’Hanlon is definitely a hawk and pro-Iraq, but Hillary Clinton also has some pretty great people in a long list of foreign policy advisors, Wesley Clark, for example. I’m not sure where O’Hanlon sits in the hierarchy of influence. But I imagine it’s pretty far down the totem pole. Probably more influential is Andrew Shapiro, who was a Lieberman aide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..wonks.html

Here’s a pretty good discussion of the “big three” and their wonks on foreign policy. But wonks, while they have influence, are often countered by other wonks if the candidate wants to have a diversity of perspectives. The article also discusses some of the differences in foreign policy between the big three.

Edward’s principal advisor is a fellow by the name of Derek Chollet who has been assigned the Iraq strategy. Mr. Chollet is a founder of Center for a New American Security (CNAS). He has been tasked by Edwards to identify how many American troops it would take to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing a base in Iraq, preventing a civil war from expanding beyond Iraq’s borders, and avoiding genocide and ethnic cleansing.

That is where Edwards has developed his program of keeping a brigade of 3500-5000 soldiers in Iraq, and an unspecified, but larger, Strike Force in Kuwait.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/6095/35/

Matthews has never been more than a wingnut smirk away from tabloid “reality-show” television. Now that he officially has Clinton to kick around as the putative coronation-winner of the democratic nomination, you don’t really expect him to change his spots, do you?

BTW, if this puts your BP up to dangerous levels, then you’d better change the political channel for the next year or so.
They don’t like Edwards or Obama, but they absolutely loathe Clinton, and it has jack to do with her positions.
Putting up photos of Hillary with horns on her head, as the question is “innocently” (and deliciously) asked:

“Is this over the line?”

is STRAIGHT out of the FoxNews playbook.

You remember them? That rightwing media Rupert-Murdoch-trufflehog, whose 10th anniversary birthday bash Clinton so obligingly attended?

After reading blogs like this and dailykos and huffingtonpost I find it ironic that if you one negative thing about Edwards or Obama you get jumped on by 10 people but if something negative about Hillary Oh well!! Its OK…

Also the same people who complain about mainstream media are glad to take MSM talking points and run with it when it comes to Hillary.

I wish people who run this blog atleast come to Hillary’s defense once in a while. What do you think about Chris Matthews calling Hillary a “She Devil” Will you defend that for God’s sake.. Haven’t heard anything about it on any of the so called leading left leaning blogs..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711190004

Ironic? Probably not. You can’t control what people think or say. If you try, you’ll just come to grief.

Here’s the thing, though: after the first vote, people can switch to another candidate in the caucus before the final tally – and I’ve seen a decided lack of coverage of potential second-candidate leanings.

P_lukusiak at Swampland notes

First off, you are assuming that there is an insignificant number of precincts that elect fewer that 4 delegates, because the 15% threshhold applies only to precincts that elect at least four. Do you have any data to show that is the case (i can’t find any–but for the sake of discussion, we’ll assume you’re correct).

Unfortunately the ’second choice’ data you show is practically meaningless, because your second choice numbers include the second choice for those who favor the top three candidates — and each of those candidates is likely to be able to reach the 15% threshhold, making the ’second choice’ for anywhere from 70-80% of caucus goers irrelevant.

Obama and Edwards are the second choices of a majority of each candidates supporters — but since they won’t have to make a choice, that doesn’t matter. All that really matters is the second choice of supporters of the third tier candidates, and they make up only 22% of likely caucus goers. “Second choice” is pretty much meaningless for Richardson because he’s still at 11% — which means that he’s not going to ve viable in the vast majority of precincts, and his strong ’second choice’ numbers won’t make a difference, because he won’t be an option.

IOW, if it’s bunched up like this among the top three, second choice doesn’t matter.

Not really. As I’ve experienced in multiple caucus states, many people voting for the less ‘popular’ candidates leave once they are convinced their candidate cannot achieve the necessary 15% – they don’t participate in the second round of voting.

After reading blogs like this and dailykos and huffingtonpost I find it ironic that if you one negative thing about Edwards or Obama you get jumped on by 10 people but if something negative about Hillary Oh well!! Its OK…

Also the same people who complain about mainstream media are glad to take MSM talking points and run with it when it comes to Hillary.

I wish people who run this blog atleast come to Hillary’s defense once in a while. What do you think about Chris Matthews calling Hillary a “She Devil” Will you defend that for God’s sake.. Haven’t heard anything about it on any of the so called leading left leaning blogs..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711190004

Using multiple screen names is reason to be banned from this site.

And while I’m thinking about it, didn’t your alter ego announce that you were never coming back?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..73395.html

Also the same people who complain about mainstream media are glad to take MSM talking points and run with it when it comes to Hillary.

I wish people who run this blog atleast come to Hillary’s defense once in a while. What do you think about Chris Matthews calling Hillary a “She Devil” Will you defend that for God’s sake.. Haven’t heard anything about it on any of the so called leading left leaning blogs..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711190004

wigwam @ 164

I had a list of each candidate’s advisors. It was something that I’ve linked to. But last night I tried and couldn’t find it. I guess I’ll have to do more searching. Sorry.

not to worry, didn’t mean for you to go looking for it… just thought to ask you to share, if you happened to have a link handy.

… am also very concerned about the foreign policiy positions of clinton/edwards/obama – although of the three obama sounds a bit better, i think. (not an endorsement of obama – he’s doing some other stuff i don’t like – for example saying social security is in “crisis”).

i find it very helpful to discuss how each of us think of the candidates and what evidence (if any) we have to back up our statements.

me, i’m still fence sitting. *g*

Me too. So much of what Obama says seems content free. But he seems the least tied into neocon positions, and he did vote against the AUMF.