comment #1

Noah says ...

Perhaps we should not spend our time ripping on Hillary, considering she is the most likely candidate. Otherwise, it will be the same thing that happened with Kerry where the Dems attacked him in the months lead up to his nomination and then those same people were screaming for Kerry to be elected. We can't tear down Hillary if she is the best shot we have of winning otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

comment #2

MAGGA says ...

What on earth is so great about Obama? What policy or promise of his is so great that it makes Wells such a cheerleader? Obviously I support the democrats, because the republicants are a incompetent as all hell (Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xT1DGJMoQ) but Obama seems like an empty vessel to me.

comment #3

vansmith says ...

obama is done, it was like watching a new car drive down the street - passing admiration but thats it. hillary and edwards for the feel good dems..

comment #4

Movie Watcher says ...

Hillary will be nominated. She should be able to beat Rudy, in spite of his constant 9/11 references. America's mayor. What a complete joke. Obama will be a better candidate in 2016, when Hillary's 2nd term is done. He needs more experience; another senatorial term, maybe a run for governor. It's a fact that governors tend to be elected presidents. At least this time the democrats have more cash than the republicans!

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, Obama should have waited until 2012 or 2016 to run. I like him and a lot of his ideas, but he lacks experience and he seems to be lacking personal momentum and the kind of fire you need to run this kind of campaign. It's tough to appeal to the party base when your message is 'we should all get along'.

comment #6

messiahcomplexio says ...

hilary won't win a state in the south. If that happens and she loses only one or two states that the dem's won last time around, she already done.

Its the electoral college stupid!

comment #7

zoey says ...

Don't you think it will be a Clinton-Obama ticket?

comment #8

dre says ...

Obama needs to learn to step on the neck of his opponents in a race a little more. you dont have to be negative, but call people out more. John Edwards has been calling Hillary out every chance he gets and he's been collecting the dividends. Good for him.

Obama will be there in 4-8 years.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

Zoey: There will be a white guy on the ticket. I say that only from a purely political perspective (and an alliterative one).

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

If Hillary is the nominee, the VP nominee would probably be someone like Bayh, Vilsack, or Webb.

comment #11

lesterg says ...

Agreed with pretty much everyone: Obama will be a guy to watch in 2012. He's just not there yet.

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

"Zoey: There will be a white guy on the ticket."

There will be Bill Richardson on the ticket. The Dem's best hope for overcoming the Southern Republican bloc is by peeling the Southwest away from it. Richardson and Latino votes are the best strategy for that (even if Latinos, a notoriously low-voter-turnout group, are an unreliable bloc to pin your hopes on).

We could pretty much jump ahead eight months and just have Clinton-Richardson vs. Giuliani-Thompson right now. But then I'm already thinking about 2016-- Obama versus Jindal! Now that's an interesting race.

comment #13

George Prager says ...

Anybody read the New York Times Book Review today?

Here's a snippet of Maureen Dowd's take on Arthur Schlesinger's Journals:1952-2000

Schlesinger considers Reagan nutty and passes on an anecdote told to him by Jim McCartney of Knight-Ridder, who sat next to the president at the ’87 Gridiron dinner. Reagan told McCartney that Chernobyl had been predicted in “the eighth chapter of Revelations with the account of the opening of the seventh seal ... a great star falling from heaven causing men to die from the bitter waters. The star, Reagan said, was called Wedgewood, and the Ukrainian word for Wedgewood is Chernobyl. McCartney looked up the passage on his return and discovered that the star was called Wormwood.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/books/review/Dowd-t.html?ref=review

A lot more where that came from.

comment #14

le corbeau says ...

"Obama will be a guy to watch in 2012."

Only if Hillary's not running for reelection.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Those Bible Belt states have a lot of skinheads, Jeff. Don't let it bother you.

Noah: Kerry at least had an anti-war streak in him once. Hillary will probably nuke Iran to win over red-state voters.

MAGGA: Obama's not the best,[If either of them had a chance, we'd probably be promoting Kucinich or Nader.] but he's the least likely mainstream candidate owned by lobbyists, and the most likely to be progressive.

Movie Watcher+jeffmcm: I'm getting tired of this bullshit about experience, when everyone was saying the same thing about her husband. It's cus he's not white, and that's all there is to it. They're afraid of voting for a black candidate, because they don't want to alienate their white friends and relatives who are only for black causes when they don't involve affirmative action or welfare, which basically means being anti-segregation, even though they don't even live near any black people themselves. They're the same douchebags who voted for Bill twice, in spite of the fact that he took away stable manufacturing jobs and replaced them with a tech bubble.

Mgmax: It'll probably be Chelsea by then.

comment #16

Noah says ...

Why would she need to win over redstate voters after she's already won? So should I take it that you'd rather vote for the Republican candidate then since you're so anti-Hillary?

comment #17

George Prager says ...

Lifecycle of a Hollywood Elsewhere post: Jeff takes a shit. Maggots eat the shit and then take shits. D.Z. comes along, eats up the maggots' shit and then pukes it back up.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Noah: There's no real difference between Hillary and a Republican candidate...

comment #19

MAGGA says ...

"Lifecycle of a Hollywood Elsewhere post: Jeff takes a shit. Maggots eat the shit and then take shits. D.Z. comes along, eats up the maggots' shit and then pukes it back up."

Then George Prager takes a swin in it while claiming that he is, like, so above it all

comment #20

George Prager says ...

I'm one of the maggots.

comment #21

Noah says ...

If you really believe that, D.Z., then all hope is lost for the Democratic party; we can't even support one of our own if they don't follow the party line at all times.

comment #22

nemo says ...

Last night I went to the the Johnson County Democrats Annual Barbecue, the biggest event in Iowa City leading up to the caucuses. All the candidates or their stand-ins spoke: Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Clinton. Joe Biden's son filled in for him, and Forest Whitaker, the last king of Scotland, filled in for Obama.

I came away with two overwhelming impressions. One, the Democrats are really fired up this year. Attendance at this event this year broke the previous record in 2004 by a factor of 3.

Two, based on performance and crowd response, Hillary has the Iowa caucuses nailed, unless she drops the ball in a major way, or unless Edwards or Obama really catch fire.

I was skeptical of the polls, but seeing the way HRC swept in and captivated the crowd astounded me. I didn't she had it in her.

I'm talking strictly in terms of who gave the most compelling performance of the evening -- Hillary probably managed to say the least in concrete terms of any speaker. I've seen Obama speak several times, and it was always clear why people call him a rock star. But when on earth did HRC, the nerdiest kid on law review, get the hang of the rock star thing.

Her entrance alone was like watching George Clooney do a 20-minute crawl through the crowd up the red carpet at Cannes. People would call out to her from the crowd, and she'd respond as if they were old friends she was dying to catch up with. HRC: "Hey, how are the Cubs doing tonight?" Voice in the crowd: "They're down 2 to nothing!" HRC: "Aw man, that's too bad!"

When a photgrapher popped up beside me, she flashed a full wattage movie star smile at me. It's totally practiced and non-spontaneous, but she finally got the hang of how to make it feel spontaneous.

And her speech, as content-free as it was, reminded me of the voice-over of that young political operative watching Travolta playing Bill Clinton, marveling at how he made you feel as if he wasn't speaking to a crowd, but speaking to you personally. She's been watching Bill do that all these years, and she's finally getting it down to a science herself.

Whitaker gave a fine speech, but he's a screen actor, not a room-working professional politician. Hillary spoke last, and she blew the competition off the stage. It was thoroughly depressing if you had any hopes for either Edwards or Obama.

comment #23

Dave says ...

Jeff, if you get a chance, you might like Peggy Noonan's (yes, her) column from Friday. It laments the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle we're just about to enter-- plus she has nice things to say about your man Obama (nicer than I would say, but hey, he's *your* favorite, not mine).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010691

comment #24

Wrecktum says ...

Obama's been playing for veep for weeks now.

comment #25

le corbeau says ...

She's also been demonstrating for some time that she plays in the majors-- obviously far more briefed and savvy on things like foreign policy than the others, who keep making basic mistakes (or things that turn out to be mistakes once she pounces on them). Briefing isn't necessarily a substitute for judgement, but if you're the sort of person who's bagged on Bush for seven years for not knowing the name of the president of Pakistan (then) or saying Saddam killed the Mandelas as if he meant that literally, then it would be pretty hypocritical to suddenly prefer a candidate who's out of his depth on geopolitics.

comment #26

Larry says ...

There's no important difference between Obama and Hillary, so it's funny seeing people making such a big deal over it.

comment #27

nemo says ...

"... it would be pretty hypocritical to suddenly prefer a candidate who's out of his depth on geopolitics."

That's like saying that because a B+/A- student isn't as good as an A+ student, he's just as bad as a D- student.

One or two years ago I didn't think HRC had a prayer of reaching the White House. I started changing that view in the past year, mainly because the whole country, including Republicans, is becoming sick of the GOP, Bush, and the war.

When I've seen her high poll numbers in the past, I always dismissed them as a product of nostalgia for Bill, her fund raising, and her skill at cozying up to the rich and powerful within the Democratic establishment. But seeing HRC in person brought home to me how much she's dedicated herself to mastering every tool available to a politician. She's at the top of her game.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

"That's like saying that because a B+/A- student isn't as good as an A+ student, he's just as bad as a D- student."

Well, under certain circumstances-- piloting a fighter jet, performing neurosurgery, running a global corporation in a fierce competitive environment, etc.-- a B student probably is just as bad as a D student, given the consequences of failure.

But then, you were set to elect Kerry despite his having worse grades than Bush, so...

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

"There's no important difference between Obama and Hillary, so it's funny seeing people making such a big deal over it."

That's what a lot of Nader voters said in 2000 before Florida, too.

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

Noah: "Why would she need to win over redstate voters after she's already won?"

She's won with some blue-staters. Bill won with red-staters.

"So should I take it that you'd rather vote for the Republican candidate then since you're so anti-Hillary?"

I'm not voting for either one of them.

"If you really believe that, D.Z., then all hope is lost for the Democratic party;"

All hope's been lost for the last 27 years.

"we can't even support one of our own if they don't follow the party line at all times."

She doesn't even try to follow the party line.

Mgmax: "She's also been demonstrating for some time that she plays in the majors-- obviously far more briefed and savvy on things like foreign policy than the others,who keep making basic mistakes (or things that turn out to be mistakes once she pounces on them). "

So voting for Iraq wasn't a mistake?

"Briefing isn't necessarily a substitute for judgement, but if you're the sort of person who's bagged on Bush for seven years for not knowing the name of the president of Pakistan (then)"

Bush needs cue cards to pronounce the names of foreign dignitaries at the U.N.!

"then it would be pretty hypocritical to suddenly prefer a candidate who's out of his depth on geopolitics."

Bush knew shit about foreign policy, but they picked him, anyway.

comment #31

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you're ignorant, which is no big deal, but you're also arrogant, and the combination of total idiocy and absolute stubbornness in presenting your ideas makes you absolutely intolerable. Does any of this ever penetrate to you? Do you have any idea how wrong you are about so many of your ideas?

For example: the next President could pick up to three Supreme Court justices. Do you want that person to be Clinton/Obama/Edwards or Giuliani/Thompson/Romney? I think that's a pretty clear-cut decision, no matter which side you're on.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

"DZ, you're ignorant, which is no big deal, but you're also arrogant, and the combination of total idiocy and absolute stubbornness in presenting your ideas makes you absolutely intolerable. Does any of this ever penetrate to you? Do you have any idea how wrong you are about so many of your ideas?"

Even if I'm wrong, I didn't kill one million Iraqis or fuck over the health needs of millions of American children to prove I was right.

"For example: the next President could pick up to three Supreme Court justices. Do you want that person to be Clinton/Obama/Edwards or Giuliani/Thompson/Romney?"

Does it really matter at this point? The most progressive the Justices have been lately is to acknowledge global warming. The best the Dems can do is keep them from venturing from the Far Right territory to the Fundy territory; and that doesn't mean a thing to me, cus we're still screwed.

comment #33

nemo says ...

Hmmm, I recall some talk about Bush's grades vs. Kerry's back at Yale 40-some years ago, but I don't believe it had an effect on anyone's vote.

A bigger concern is that Bush doesn't show much evidence that he's felt the need to learn anything about the world in the 40 years since he left college. (It was hard to muster any enthusiasm for Kerry, but he was least bad choice available in November 2004.)

Bush did surround himself with some probable A+ students such as Rice and Wolfowitz, but their contributions to this administration hardly amount to an advertisement for high college grades as a substitute for judgment.

"... running a global corporation in a fierce competitive environment ..." -- Reminds me of the saying in investment circles that it helps to be smart, but it helps even more to be lucky.

I have some experience working in a global corporation in a fierce competitive environment. Any number of things could have killed us off in the last 15 years, but instead we grew. We thrive when everyone in the company is smart, works hard, uses good judgment, responds to new challenges with agility, expands their skills and knowledge. Not just the guy at the top.

comment #34

le corbeau says ...

Oh please, I'm done arguing about Bush with folks here, and if they had any sense they would be too. A year and three months and he's gone, focus on the next one instead of reciting the conventional wisdom (Bush doesn't read! Funny, you never hear the authors he meets with say that) which, frankly, you don't have a fucking clue if it's true or not and neither do I, since neither of us know the man and if we have any sense, we don't trust anything we hear about him any further than we can throw it.

"So voting for Iraq wasn't a mistake?"

Of course not, it was popular when she did it, and now her current stance is popular too, and her next one will be popular when it happens, and the one after that. What's a mistake? Doing something that isn't popular. There's no danger of that.

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

Oh, and I'd love to hear someone name ONE thing John Kerry has learned since college.

comment #36

nemo says ...

For someone who claims he's through with defending Bush, you sure put a lot of energy into defending Bush.

It is possible to be a Republican, dislike all Democratic candidates past, present, and future, and still admit you're fed up with Bush.

comment #37

BurmaShave says ...

No way we get a woman and a minority on the same ticket. Richardson is going to be convinced to run for the newly open Senate seat in New Mexico, which he would walk right into, just like Warner will in Virginia. We need the biggest Senate Majority we can get. My money would be on Bayh, though Webb would be absolutely fantastic.

comment #38

christian says ...

i thought jon stewart helped punched a hole into chris matthew's thesis that people can be suckered into anything.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "What's a mistake? Doing something that isn't popular."

So the Underground Railroad was a mistake?

comment #40

Noah says ...

"So the Underground Railroad was a mistake?"

I think I speak for everyone when I say: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

comment #41

jeffmcm says ...

"Even if I'm wrong, I didn't kill one million Iraqis or fuck over the health needs of millions of American children to prove I was right."

I am so sick of your pathetic, change-the-subject straw-man counter-arguments. It shows you are essentially unserious about any of these discussions and are only interested in your own sick amusement.

"that doesn't mean a thing to me, cus we're still screwed."

If you're that nihilistic and hopeless for the future, by all means stop wasting everyone else's time with your posts. Because obviously, you are serving no useful purpose, right?

comment #42

le corbeau says ...

"Mgmax: "What's a mistake? Doing something that isn't popular."
So the Underground Railroad was a mistake?"

DZ, even by your non-sequitur standards, this one is a pip. I was (somewhat sarcastically) describing how a presidential candidate cynically views her decision making process. You responded with something that was NOT a presidential action or policy, was not subject in any way to judgements of popularity, was in fact illegal but done by individuals charged with a sense of their own righteousness. How you think that relates on any level to what I am talking about is a complete mystery to me. You might as well have said "So bowling a .300 game was a mistake?" or "So wide-mouth bass are a mistake?"

comment #43

le corbeau says ...

"For someone who claims he's through with defending Bush, you sure put a lot of energy into defending Bush."

Some truth to that, but I prefer to think of it as resisting the thoughtless conventional wisdomism by which people think they "know" all sorts of things they've merely heard repeated over and over.

comment #44

rocco says ...

Wells, why are you so cool with Obama's overriding christianity? The guy mentions God and faith more than Rudy mention 9/11, yet gets a free pass from you. What gives?

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I am so sick of your pathetic, change-the-subject straw-man counter-arguments. It shows you are essentially unserious about any of these discussions"

Oh, I'm serious. You just don't to deal with my bluntness.

"If you're that nihilistic and hopeless for the future, by all means stop wasting everyone else's time with your posts. Because obviously, you are serving no useful purpose, right?"

Probably not, but I ain't goin' down without a fight.

Mgmax: "DZ, even by your non-sequitur standards, this one is a pip. I was (somewhat sarcastically) describing how a presidential candidate cynically views her decision making process. You responded with something that was NOT a presidential action or policy,"

The Presidential actions and policies of those times were usually to ignore the problem. But if you want me to take it that route, was Carter trying to make us less dependent on oil by coming up with alternative fuels a mistake?

"You responded with something that was NOT a presidential action or policy, was not subject in any way to judgements of popularity,"

So freeing slaves was acceptable at the time?

"was in fact illegal but done by individuals charged with a sense of their own righteousness."

And when something is illegal, that usually means the majority of the public supports it.

del: "Wells, why are you so cool with Obama's overriding christianity? The guy mentions God and faith more than Rudy mention 9/11, yet gets a free pass from you. What gives?"

He doesn't do it in a way which makes you feel we're gonna be even more of a theocracy than we have been under Bush.

comment #46

le corbeau says ...

""You responded with something that was NOT a presidential action or policy, was not subject in any way to judgements of popularity,"

So freeing slaves was acceptable at the time?"

So you believe that catching wide-mouth bass is wrong?

comment #47

rocco says ...

Helter Zelter, I get that...but Wells and many others generally hold "feeble-minded" believers in very low regard, equating faith in god as a denial of science and rationalism. While Obama avoids injecting religion into his politics, ignoring the "conservative" believer in him seems a bit disingenuous.

comment #48

le corbeau says ...

" even more of a theocracy than we have been under Bush."

The hysterical fantasy world you people live in!

It wasn't Bush who invited an actual, murderous theocrat to come blather at Columbia.

comment #49

christian says ...

"In the programme, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former Prime Minister and now Palestinian President, that "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq', and I did.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

and hillary's latest inability to answer a reasoned question pops up again:

When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html

comment #50

storymark says ...

"

The hysterical fantasy world you people live in!

It wasn't Bush who invited an actual, murderous theocrat to come blather at Columbia.

Posted by Mgmax at October 8, 2007 08:23 AM"

Riiiight. Becuase Columbia runs the country. And Bush, and all of his support for faith-based initiatives, has nothing atall to do with this country, becuase he's only the President.

What the fuck fantasy world are you in??

comment #51

Jay T. says ...

I hate to break it to you Wells, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama really aren't all that different... and I don't mean that to be a bad thing. People have simply lost their minds and sense of reason when it comes to politics these days -- I find it hilarious that if you asked the average Republican which Democrat candidate they'd LEAST like to see win the White House, 99% would say Hillary Clinton despite the fact that her policies are the most centrist or right-leaning of the three. In fact, they'd probably prefer John Edwards, who is at heart the most liberal of the three candidates. Makes NO sense.

comment #52

christian says ...

Americans are suckers for false advertising. And Edwards is by far the most Democratic of the media annointed top three candidates.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "It wasn't Bush who invited an actual, murderous theocrat to come blather at Columbia."

No, his family just did enough business with them in Saudia Arabia to fund the attack on the WTC...

comment #54

le corbeau says ...

Well, Bush had to get the money from somewhere! Secret planes to take the passengers away and dynamite to destroy the towers don't come cheap!

But why all this hate for wide-mouth bass?

comment #55

le corbeau says ...

Well, Bush had to get the money from somewhere! Secret planes to take the passengers away and dynamite to destroy the towers don't come cheap!

But why all this hate for wide-mouth bass?

comment #56

christian says ...

Obama also dared to mention the word "empathy" which i liked him for bringing up. Paul Krugman nails it:

Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon," once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms - "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family," and so on - have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that's when he's speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared "zero tolerance of people breaking the law," even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren't getting from his administration.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100507C.shtml

comment #57

le corbeau says ...

Yes, we need more empathy for people like the 12-year-old who delivered a speech about health care for the Democrats the other day. Mark Steyn put it well today:

"In the absence of real need, we've persuaded ourselves that we need to create more and more programs for the middle-class and wealthy. Several correspondents have written to scoff at the idea that the Frosts are wealthy, citing family friends who suggest the grandparents chip in for the private-school fees.

"But hang on. That's as it should be. That's the kind of healthy transgenerational solidarity without which no society can survive (see Europe). Graeme Frost's maternal grandfather died last December, and The Baltimore Sun reported:

"At Bendix, he helped develop the first microwave landing systems for commercial aircraft and worked on NASA's manned space program from 1960 to 1977. For the next decade, he worked in management at Bendix facilities in Iowa, Florida, New Jersey and Baltimore. From 1989 to 1991, he was vice president of engineering at Nurad Technologies, which manufactures antennas...

"So executive vice-presidents' families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the "death tax" and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty."

Empathy is how the state enters one more part of our lives after another, puts us all on its payroll, decides the fate of more and more of our money, and takes away our ability to decide for ourselves, all in the name of caring. Like a Mafia don, once you invite the government in, you'll always be part of the family, living by its rules and ensuring its eternal power by your acquiescence.

comment #58

christian says ...

Except when the government teat gets suckled by military contractors, in which case the trough is open for business without scrutiny. But Mgmax, you've already invited the government in with your support of this administration and their contempt for the rule of law has you happily acquiesing to their eternal power.

Wasn't it a government that pulled our lives into Iraq in the name of caring?

comment #59

le corbeau says ...

I'm always amazed at what I'm assumed to support, just because I don't support, say, Hillarycare. Actually, though, if the price of not having my most basic personal and family decisions subject to the approval of bureaucrats is that a few contractors make out like bandits in the defense realm, that would be... a whole lot like most of American history, actually. I could live with that, and the very dim chance that my phone calls to al-Qaeda members in Hamburg are being listened to, as long as I don't have to get every runny nose my kids have approved by some 9-to-5er at the Department of Medical Supervision, and a note made in my permanent file every time my kid has a bruise. You worry about the fascism you're worried about, and I'll worry about mine.

Oh, and nobody ever said we went into Iraq because we cared, we went in because it's a strategically important country being run by a crazy fucker who invaded people every chance he got.

comment #60

christian says ...

See Mgmax? You can't even keep your government's story straight on why we went to Iraq. To get rid of WMD'S remember? But you continually trust the incompentent bureacracy of your party to foster death and destruction in Iraq while railing on the thought that some poor children might get a hot meal in America.

As for government contract work, you can't beat Blackwater...

comment #61

le corbeau says ...

Excuse me, Christian, just what do you think is contradictory about "crazy fucker wh invaded people every chance he got" and WMDs? What do you think he generally attacked with, wide-mouth bass?

Puerile games of gotcha only expose the lack of serious geopolitical thinking of your side.

comment #62

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I could live with that, and the very dim chance that my phone calls to al-Qaeda members in Hamburg are being listened to, as long as I don't have to get every runny nose my kids have approved by some 9-to-5er at the Department of Medical Supervision, and a note made in my permanent file every time my kid has a bruise. You worry about the fascism you're worried about, and I'll worry about mine."

Yes, the feds being able to take care of you sooner is so much worse than them being able to detain you indefinitely, because they mixed you up with a terrorist cell. Genius.

"Oh, and nobody ever said we went into Iraq because we cared, we went in because it's a strategically important country being run by a crazy fucker who invaded people every chance he got."

He invaded people with our money and weapons. And if you're going by that logic, why don't we do something about what's going on in Burma?