“pragmatic” devoid of principle, power seeking (D) strategists should smell the coffee on this and support someone else if they seek the perks of power.

otherwise lapsed (R)’s will ‘kneewalk to the polls to vote against her, and anyone with a shred of sincere antiwar sentiment cannot pull the lever for someone who will expand Bush’s disasterous agression to Iran.

John Edwards deeply regrets his authorizing vote for an utterly-bullshit-based war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, and has apologized for it a number of times.

Hillary has said she’d do it differently, if she had it to do again…which is exactly what some republicans hoping to excuse themselves, have cobbled up.

I will guarandamntee you that I can use about as much bandwidth listing the FACTUAL reasons why she doesn’t deserve support from democrats, as you used to try to defend her.

Would you like to see that? It’s too late to do it now, but I’ll start working on it, if you like. :o)

Hillary Clinton is a political disaster waiting to happen for ALL the democrats, not just we progressives. She is the last, best, hope that the GOP has for hanging on to the white house and retaking congress.

One more time; can you find anything on Edwards or Obama that is the equivalent of this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..0694.shtml

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011314.php
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011525.php

The first one is on Iran; the second on the removal of his 2002 speech from his website.

… for a more reality-based take on the candidate’s positions on Iraq and Iran, read anything in this list of Eriposte’s articles http://www.theleftcoaster.com/…..php#011475

For instance, compare these excerpts from Clinton’s and Obama’s Foreign Affairs articles:

The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration’s effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress.

Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to “rekindle the vision,” shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons

Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power — political, economic, and military — could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran’s nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran — and especially the Iranian people — what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance — which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus’ grip, and better secure Israel.

Can you tell which is Obama’s and which is Clinton’s? Which is more hawkish.
If you like, I can dig up Edwards saying that “all options are on the table” when it comes to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Hillary said that, you know people would be outraged. Edwards? He’s the “peace” candidate.

Give me a break. ALL THREE top candidates are hawks. Edwards and Obama are trying to convince people otherwise, but they haven’t fooled me.

One other item, for those of you who are impressed by Obama’s high-minded, idealistic opposition to the war in 2002. Exactly how strongly was he against the war in 2003? Well, let’s see… hmmm. His 2002 anti-war speech was taken down because… damn I can’t type the words without my fingers spasming in paroxysms of belly laughter:
Here’s what the man himself had to say!

The only reason that my original anti-war speech was removed from my website was a judgment that the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff’s desire to continually provide fresh news clips.

Ooh, the “formal phase” of the war was over!! ROFLMAO! What about all those predictions of how the war would turn out? Did Obama decide in 2003 that he was wrong, only to change his mind again in 2005? What a principled, unwavering stand—-in support of his own advancement. Ugh.

Face, the next few weeks are going to feature a lot of hardball. Hillary’s in it to win, and so are Edwards and Obama.

I will NOT vote for her in a primary OR a general. Period.

Whereas, of course, her strong but reasoned…oh, hell, I can’t even type this shit anymore.

Well, if you weren’t a Mutant Poodle, then maybe you could tape out the words on a keyboard a little easier.

Just think how Hillary’s speech writers must feel? They see that stuff day in and day out.

If she says we have to do something to ‘avert’ war, then that means it’s inevitable otherwise. That’s just a flat out lie!