For the record, Bloomberg would be devastating leadership for the US.

However, should you check back General Clark, when reading the book, I was struck by your emphasis on public schooling as the great equalizer and the key to opporunity for anyone willing to work hard.

I also noticed the level of detail you went into about infrastructure when you were a base commander: building schools, hospitals, PX’s, housing, etc.

Obviously you gave that a lot of attetnion or you would not have been able to warm to the topic as you did.

So, I guess my questions are these:

If social welfare issues are critical to the success of the army, are they not also critical to the success of the country?

Why is it preferable for the government to build and provide housing and even retail shopping for the the armed forced, but not to be directly involved in planned communities?

Is the most effective thing the government can do to ensure our economic, political and military strength, simply to be competent at ensuring organized delivery of social welfare services?

Is the most significant of these, healthcare? After all, a healthy population is a more efficient and productive population.

Do you think the current administration understands AT ALL the importance of meeting the basic social welfare needs of military families?

Hillary was there to vote

Yes, she was there to vote for Kyl-Lieberman, a “gutted” resolution, but was she there to stand with Christopher Dodd when he stood up to Senate Republicans and his own Democratic leadership over the FISA bill with its immunity for telecoms, basket warrants, dicey minimization procedures, and vague promises not to reverse target? No.

This is a criticism I have made of both Clinton and Obama. This is about more than votes. Most of us here can distinguish between a real vote and a cosmetic one, or between politicians who say they are against something but don’t show for the vote. Clinton and Obama talk about leadership on the campaign trail, but when it comes to exercising it in their day job in the Senate, they are nowhere to be found. For her part, Hillary could have led the opposition to the Iraq war, the saber rattling with Iran, or the changes to FISA (now if you wanted an example of gutting, there you have a great one), but she didn’t. Her presence with Dodd would have sent a strong message, one that even that Harry Reid could not have ignored. Instead we have Reid planning to push the atrocious Intel version of the FISA bill again next year. Perhaps if Hillary did a little more leading, she would find that she did not need to do so much campaigning.

but i wish you hadn’t accused hugh of repeating talking points – especially when he’s someone we all know has never repeated anyone’s talking points. would much prefer to instead of engage on the issues – if you are willing.