Redstate

As a Democrat, I would say it is true that yes, her support for the IWR resolution does hurt her. Just as important, however, is the fact that while Edwards will get forgiveness as he apologized for his vote early and is now steadfastly fighting the escalation through cutting off the funding, while Clinton and Obama are not.
Of course, the wild card is Gore, somewhat of a grassroots hero now. Really, people do not realize that were he to jump in, he would be an instant front-runner. His early opposition to Iraq and the U SAP AT RIOT Act and his fighting to make climate change, one of the single most important issues today have made him very popular. Were he to jump in, Obama and Edwards get a huge amount of support pulled out from under them. However, it is unlikely that he will. He has repeatedly denied it (just yesterday, I heard him in Boston and he gave the answer he's been giving: he has no plans to, he's running a different type of campaign). But Gore is nothing to laugh at. I, and many others, are primed to support him.

In that the majority of Dems are insane, why wouldn't the most unstable candidate appeal to them. The man is seriously, mentally ill.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

candidates that belong in the unstable category... Let's just remember the past on ole Hillary...

___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

I Sure hope she fails to get the nomination.
I don't! :-)

maybe she'll spend less time here.

On her website is a tab call 'hillraiser' - a first glance I thought it said Hellraiser and thought of the Clive Barker film.. appropriate.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

Swish.

Run like Reagan!

I feel your pain. Once John Edwards comes out, the Donks will have the "split the base" trifecta down completely.

Of course, in the end, we know that they'll vote for whomever gets nominated. But it's going to be fun to watch the fur fly.

While I think it is unlikely that Hillary will get the nod if she somehow does get the nod because she'll be the last person standing, I think the Democratic Party should simply stop submitting candidates to run for President because it will be clear that they really aren't that interested in taking the White House.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Right now. I'll just tell you something I've thought for a long time: you should switch parties. I can make that appeal uniquely, and it's heartfelt, because I think you'd be a great Republican if you changed your mind a little. It seems tough at the outset, but eventually you realize that it's better, more of the time.

I think the Democrats are doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" version of Presidential campaigning right now. In other words I think a fair approximation of what they're doing (and don't tell me these folks don't talk with each other behind the scenes) is that they're going to try to oversaturate the political process with Marquee Candidates and Big Names, hoping that one of them will win.

Maybe it'll work. I have my own ideas, though.

"I think the Democrats are doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" version of Presidential campaigning right now."
Actually, all that's really happened is that the top three candidates in the polls have entered the race. Pretty standard, actually.

Barack Obama was never among the "top three" of anything politically until the Democrats in Illinois, sensing the incredible weakness of the Republican party there, deliberately pushed him into the Senate and now into the Presidential race. Obama is a "made man" and he was "made" in the first instance by liberal professors and wealthy Donks in Chicago. I know because I was there and I read the emails.

After Ryan was defenestrated and had to furlough all the prisoners on Death Row in Illinois and Blagojevich became the odds-on-favorite, all of the intellectuals I knew started working their networks to do two things:

1) Make sure that any Republican candidate for the seat was completely destroyed (which happened).

2) Make sure that everyone voted for Obamarama.

He's there in the Senate because of perhaps 5,000 people in Illinois. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but if I had distributed the internal emails I had about Obama to the nationwide press there would be an incredible scandal. He was their "made man."

And this differs how from every other politician?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

It differs in the sense that it doesn't make the news. It's suppressed, and deliberately so, because if the internal politics were known people might have decided differently in Illinois. It also differs because I know personally that intellecuals -- who pretend to be unbiased -- actually were the prime movers behind Obama in Illinois.

We would expect that if a corporation supported a candidate that all their records would be available. But just as FAIR vs. RUMSFELD was a politically-motivated hit by antiwar intellectuals, Obama's candidacy was a particularly smelly example of it.

In essence, all that I'm telling people like George Will who think that academics are "marginalized" is that they are incorrect. They're not "marginalized" in any sense of the word when it comes to getting Senate candidates elected.

I guess I'm not following your point.

This sort of information rarely makes it to the news.

Are you suggesting that something illegal occurred?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

That's all I'm doing is pointing out the bias. It's widely acknowledged. Have lunch with a professor from Illinois sometime. I'm also not excusing the terrible weakness of the Illinois Republican party during the same timeframe: look at who they offered as opposion candidates. It was their race to lose and they lost it spectacularly.

One of the reasons that I held my tongue about the knee-jerk "support Obama" emails that I was privy to is because I believed that they were just part of the normal political process in Illinois. That, however, does not prevent me from telling you that it was partisan, and exceptionally in one direction, toward one candidate. And the Republicans did nothing substantive to stop it because they were in full retreat. You'll note that I'm not naming names, here. I respect those people's privacy, but I'm going to tell you that if you believe Obama was just a self-made candidate there, you're incorrect. I think history will bear that out.

I'm not sure what a self-made candidate actually is.

Obama was a Illinois academic. It doesn't seem terribly shocking that the other Democratic Illinois academics liked him and backed. Unless you can point to some kingmaker ability of these professors I don't see how this is anything more than a political base for Obama.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I think there really is a "kingmaker" ability that academics have, especially in a state where almost all of the academics are (D).

Let's ask who gets interviewed by the media, for instance. Or by National Public Radio. Or the people who self-select when they sit on promotion and tenure committees. I think you want to try to avoid the obvious here: Chicago, Illinois is a Democrat stronghold and it worked through its intellectuals and wealthy people to get Barack Obama elected.

Now Obama is running for President after being carefully shepherded during his tenure in the Senate. When I lived in Illinois I actually had an open bet with one of my friends: "How long do you think it will take before he runs for President?"

My guess was 2008. I won the $50. I was right, because the obvious strategy has been to get him into national prominence and reported in the media, and have him run before his Senate record became too much of a political liability.

Barack Obama is one of those men who has been thrust to greatness by the people who wanted to see him succeed. He's the Original Affirmative Action Presidential Candidate, in my opinion.

Obviously there was a reason why they picked Obama over countless other Democrats. I certainly agree that Illinois, and Chicago in particular, is a D stronghold. But why did they pick Obama over the litany of other choices available?

I guess I just haven't read anything that you wrote that seems, in any way, abnormal.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I think they did because of a real sense of congruity -- even a little bit of hero worship -- with him. I don't think they're duplicitious: I think they're BIASED. There's a difference. Barack Obama is an exceptionally well-spoken, well-educated intellectual-sounding guy. He's SMOOTH in a way that Hillary can never be. And he has a personal presence that kind of bowls over intellectuals who toil behind desks all day long. He's not offensive. He's got a certain kind of genteel abstraction to him that appeals to professors in particular. He's sensitive, and I am sure that female professors love him more than the male ones do. Academically, I'm sure he's a bright guy and when professors in Illinois came to know him the first thing that flashed through their mind was: "This is the MAN."

Please note that I'm not condeming professors for thinking this way: I'm just telling you that Barack fits a lot of what they want from an African-American candidate, or any candidate for that matter.

But he's not my candidate by definition. As much as I might like Barack Obama personally if I met him, I know just about nothing about his policies and I would never vote for him.

I don't disagree with a lot of this.

I guess we differ on his actual potential value. But other than that it seems you have pegged a lot of the reasons why people in general are drawn to him.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

At the time Barack Obama was in embryo as a Presidential prospect, Hillary's star was falling. Nobody I knew at the time thought that the Hillster would run in '08, and because of that a lot of the impetus went to Obama as the Next Great Hope. They were hedging their bets, in other words, and Obama is not just the Great Affirmative Action Candidate but also The Big Hedge.

" if I had distributed the internal emails I had about Obama to the nationwide press there would be an incredible scandal. "

Care to elaborate?

Because I don't have them anymore. I didn't keep them. But the clear implication of the emails that I saw at the highest level were that Barack Obama was the choice of the professorate in Illinois and that they were going to use their influence to make sure his candidacy was successful.

This was an open secret among faculty members. I even lampooned it with a guy I knew at DePaul who joked about how Obama was a shoo-in (and he's as liberal as you can get without being Arthur Schlesinger.)

What I'm saying is that they should just admit it, instead of trying to hide behind the mask of academic objectivity. I'll admit that I'm a Republican, and I oppose their candidates. What I'd like to see is the professorate to become a little more forthcoming. They have a lot more power to shape opinion than I do, after all.

Right now. I'll just tell you something I've thought for a long time: you should switch parties. I can make that appeal uniquely, and it's heartfelt, because I think you'd be a great Republican if you changed your mind a little. It seems tough at the outset, but eventually you realize that it's better, more of the time.

I'm more than willing to vote for a Republican and I have in the past. There doesn't seem to be much chance of that this go round because the options seem unappealing, at least the realistic ones.

As I have said before here, I am not a Democrat although I lean Democrat more heavily in recent years than in the past, I am more than willing to consider a Republican.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

the options seem unappealing, at least the realistic ones

that McCain, Guiliani and Romney are not your preferered GOP candidates. You are holding out for Duncan Hunter? Ron Paul? Tom Tancredo?

that Rudy has a snowball's chance in Hades of being the Republican nominee.

Romney strikes me as an opportunist and unless he can change my view on him I am not all that hot on him.

I don't like McCain's very hawkish views on Iraq, which strike me as his trying to be a "Maverick".

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

her, because all the guns of every other DNC candidate will be turned directly on her, before the GOP ever has to get a shot at her.

But the Clinton's were always good at digging up dirt and hurting opponents just when they needed to be hurt, I suspect she will eat Obama alive and have Edwards for desert.

I think you guys really overrate her cut-throat capabilities. Bill is an exceptionally good political animal. Hillary has not shown that trait.

Her only chance is if the DNC does a stupid again, like they did in 2004, and goes with her simply because she is the most recognizable name.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

as, if I'm not mistaken, Dick Morris (who would know if not he?) has said many times. I doubt her political ear has improved. Further, she gets shrill at some point in every single speech. I mean paint-peelingly shrill. She's a screeching fishwife banshee and I just cannot see it in a president.

Can there be a single person on earth who actually likes, I mean likes, this woman? Her dislikability is off the charts.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

"As I've said many times...."
"As I've said before ...."
"As you have often heard me say ...."

Translation:

"I'm lying, but unlike John Kerry who can preface every statement with this nonsense (since he has taken every side of every issue), I know that the MSM will never call me to task. So it's a little verbal tic I'm addicted to -- you know -- self-corroboration from one of the most trustworthy public figures in the world."

but it is more the ability to kill your enemies through others that seems to be a good Clinton ability.

Is there really any doubt that Clinton would have successfully painted Monica into the "slut making up lies" corner had there not been a blue dress (although why she kept the dress with Bill's little contribution is beyond me, but that dress saved her bacon and cooked his)?

And Hillary will have the media backing her, at least if she gets through to the general, I am not sure who the media is going to fawn over just yet, they seem rather enamored of Obama-I suspect he gets a nice media ride for a while, but I don't see him as a true viable candidate-he just seems to inexperienced.

Is there really any doubt that Clinton would have successfully painted Monica into the "slut making up lies" corner had there not been a blue dress (although why she kept the dress with Bill's little contribution is beyond me, but that dress saved her bacon and cooked his)?

Clinton could paint Monica into the "slut making up lies" because she is the wife not because she is particularly politically sharp. Honestly, how hard is it to paint a slut out of a 21 year old intern who just slept with the president.

This goes to my larger point. You guys are lowering the bar down to knee height if being able to smear a political nobody who slept with your husband is considered difficult.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

What nobody is saying (PC rules) is that the media is going to accentuate the candidacy of anyone who meets the above criteria. It is a fact that Obama certainly has more charisma than Hillary (not to mention her baggage) so that puts him at the top. Now it is just a matter of convincing the rest of the population that his ideas are not too "liberal" for the masses. With the help of the MSM, they just may convince the majority of those that do not pay attention to politics.

she's going to have to wait until there a few active Republican candidates before she starts trashing Obama. They'll need someone to deflect the blame onto,

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.