Hillary: "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"

I wonder how they could possibly lose?

many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle.

Yeah, I've really been noticing that lately.

Some pretty good points in there, quite frankly.

The "higher plane" this person keeps referring to sounds rather like a crock of shiat.

Basically: "The Democrat candidate might lose because Democrats tend to talk about policy instead of fellating the Founders with meaningless platitudes."

If the Democrats lose, it will be because they are pissing away the momentum they got from the 2006 election ~ wholly based on the negative perception of the War in Iraq, which they have done NOTHING so far. Current Congress is as "do-nothing" as they were before, so:

(A) The war gets worse & they are called on the hypocrisy in their inaction

(B) The Surge maintains its force & they are ridiculed for attempting action on it.

Either way, they lost all goodwill gained by the interim elections by standing idly-by while the war proceeds & they attempt to cash in on it by waiting.

If the market is solid or improves in the 3-6 months before election & the War does not take a horrid turn, their as screwed as they can be. Dems have historically been elected in recent years due to domestic destablilzation.

rocinante721: If the market is solid or improves in the 3-6 months before election & the War does not take a horrid turn, their as screwed as they can be

Yeah, I caught that typo. It's past my bedtime.

rocinante721: they are called on the hypocrisy in their inaction

They don't have a veto proof or filibuster proof majority. There's nothing they can do about the war. The Surge is a farce. They walled off all of Baghdad and gave random gangs weapons to pacify their walled in neighborhoods.

Still, the point is that enough Americans probably are stupid enough to go with the Republicans over their dissatisfaction with the war.

And so we'll get what we deserve.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: She's right. Why is everyone so concerned with meanless platitudes (I'm looking at you, Paultards) when people have serious material needs that could be helped? Why are people so hostile to the idea of losing a little freedom to getting a lot more security in their lives?

First of all, that's not the quote.

And this schtick of yours is growing tiresome.

7of7: They don't have a veto proof or filibuster proof majority. There's nothing they can do about the war. The Surge is a farce. They walled off all of Baghdad and gave random gangs weapons to pacify their walled in neighborhoods.

Yes, I know, but the point is is that they were elected on the issue of the war (no definitive way to prove it) & they stay back & do nothing.

I foresee this can bite themselves in the arse.

Of course, electing Republicans because we're angry at Democrats for not ending the war makes perfect sense.

I got tired of reading it by the end of the first page, but I can say that I at least agree with what was said there.

I very much oppose the theocratic wing of the Republican Party. While I agree much more with the basic platform of the Democratic Party, the Democrats have proven themselves time and time again to just be a pathetic party. They have to be extremely pathetic to lose against the Republicans in 2008, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

Hillary: "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"

It means the government has regulated health care out of your reach, sucka. And you still vote for them.

Demoncrats are so cute when they are scared.

/Don't trust any of them.

rocinante721: If the Democrats lose, it will be because they are pissing away the momentum they got from the 2006 election ~ wholly based on the negative perception of the War in Iraq, which they have done NOTHING so far.

Their win in '06 had far more to do with "Macaca" and Foley in the final few weeks leading into the election than Iraq ever did as evidenced by their ever caving in on every supplemental spending bill.

They will be hard pressed to duplicate that feat.. but never count a politician out of doing something incredibly stupid. After all.. if they were rocket scientists they would probably be doing rocket science.

7of7: They don't have a veto proof or filibuster proof majority. There's nothing they can do about the war

They can refuse to pass any new funding. That would force an end to the war whenever what's already been approved runs out. (Which, iirc, is something like 6 months at any given time).

As for 2008- the simple answer is that the only way the Republicans can win is to repudiate Bush completely and run an anti-war candidate. A candidate who voted against the war in Congress could tear Hillary a new one over it, and all of a sudden the unpopularity of the war will be hurting her rather than the Republican nominee.

Hmm... I wonder where we could find an anti-Bush, anti-war Republican presidential candidate...

AngryWhiteMale: Demoncrats are so cute when they are scared.

Demoncrats!

That's hilarious!

You are very funny.

Demoncrats! How did you ever think of something so clever, StupidfknWhiteMale?

rocinante721: Current Congress is as "do-nothing" as they were before

You do understand that the previous Congress was "do-nothing" by choice, as they had a majority and an ally in the White House, whereas the current Congress is "do-nothing" because they have an opponent in the WH, and less than a veto-proof majority...right?

I mean, you do see the difference, right? You're not a dumbass douchebag with no fkn knowledge of how our government works, after all....right?

If ideals won elections, then why is the Congress full of people belonging to parties who win by carefully segmenting the population as much as they can, telling various segments what they want to hear with tailor-made policies, and sending money to their home districts?

It's analogy time. The Iraq war is a college class with several research papers that need to be written. It requires continued effort. So for the first month or two, you smoke some pot, play some Halo, and maybe look at your books for 10 minutes a night before saying "fark that." All of the sudden, things are due, and you're falling behind. You realize you need to put more effort into it, so you pull an all-nighter. Hey, that worked, you got stuff done. So you keep pulling all-nighters and gaining ground on where you should already be.

The problem is, you can't pull a permanent all-nighter. At some point, you'll have to sleep.

/for me, that time is now

Oh, great article...

The 2008 Republican candidates: true defenders of the founding principles of the nation.

Recall all Repuglikkkans She's right. Why is everyone so concerned with meanless platitudes (I'm looking at you, Paultards) when people have serious material needs that could be helped?

I believe Dr. Paul supports an "above the line" tax credit for health insurance premiums.

Of course we would have to do something very rash, like close a few of our 700 overseas military bases to pay for it, but I think if we try real hard, it can be done.

I wish Dr. Paul could be as sane as Hillary and just ask us all to turn over our paychecks and let lobbyists and porkspending decide how to pay for things.

Lionel Mandrake: AngryWhiteMale: Demoncrats are so cute when they are scared.

Demoncrats!

That's hilarious!

You are very funny.

Demoncrats! How did you ever think of something so clever, StupidfknWhiteMale?

Probably the same place someone thought "Repuglikkkans" was cute.

The more I get into politics, the more I realize that it is completely chaotic. You can't predict the results of anything someone does. As long as you're not overtly racist and don't mention raising taxes, you have a chance at making it (and I'm not even sure how firm those two rules are).

Very good points in there. Hillary's statement is rediculous. But despite this I still don't think there is a scenario for Republican victory in '08.

National Democrats have been reluctant to engage on this higher plane for many years, beyond occasional feel-good speeches stressing non-controversial values like community and inclusiveness.

I haven't been paying attention to anyone else, but I know Obama's campaign has been churning out details like mad.

/It's called the Media Barrier for a reason.

Mordant: many Americans want leadership that appeals to them on the higher plane of principle.

Yeah, I've really been noticing that lately.

I dunno, I see the writer's point in that the Dems seem to be neglecting basic principles and trying to bribe us into voting for them. However, he seems to also assume we're too dumb to see the republican discussion of principles for the crock of shiat it is, which is underestimating the intelligence of american voters (yeah, i know, that's really saying something). Since neither party has any genuine principles, it really comes down to the candidate rather than the party: I plan to vote for the candidate most likely to tell hi party to go fark itself when it wants something farking retarded. I have some hopes for Obama... yeah, that's about it. Hope he wins the primary.

If the republican nominee is Huckabee, no matter who the democratic nominee is, they will win. The majority of Americans aren't looking for a theocracy. If it's Giuliani, he will beat Hillary by a small margin but Obama would be more difficult and has a good chance of winning. Hillary is by far the easiest candidate to beat because Republicans who may have just stayed home on election day will all come out in full force to ensure she doesn't win. John Edwards would be an easy win for republicans as well because he's viewed as a socialist. Right now I think the strongest candidates are Obama and Mitt Romney. I do think Ron Paul will play a huge role in whatever happens though. You can be absolutely certain that he will not give up because his supporters keep donating millions.

justoneznot: Hillary is by far the easiest candidate to beat because Republicans who may have just stayed home on election day will all come out in full force to ensure she doesn't win. John Edwards would be an easy win for republicans as well because he's viewed as a socialist. Right now I think the strongest candidates are Obama and Mitt Romney.

In this recent series of head-to-head polls (PDF), Edwards came out on top. Hillary does alright, for the most part.

"I elected you to keep the Republicans in check, but you didn't, so now I'm voting for the Republicans."

Logic is not Americans' strong point.

Replace "voting for the Republicans" with "not voting". But you'll just be repeating yourself.

/Not voting = voting for the winner.
//Like going to a restaurant and saying "I'll have what he's having."

DNRATFA, ............. OK DRTFA,

TFA: Democrats think the public is just interested in new social programs, but voters are looking for something more inspirational.

Hillary: A slightly left inclination from the same
Biden: too cool to actually happen
K-sin: way out there
9/11 guy: Dictatorship
Romney: inconsistencies and pseudo-populist
RP4eva: No. He's a loco.

Obama: actually inspirational. really, we could turn this country around. (psss, my vote. though in IL I dont think it much matters).

BO/JE 2008
You heard it here first.

/drunk and running off my neighbors wireless (glad i'm not in MI, jail and all). Go'nite folks.

liberalish: BO/JE 2008
You heard it here first.

Did not.

I still like Biden. He won't win; he's too qualified and rational for Americans to vote for him.

Mordant: Still, the point is that enough Americans probably are stupid enough to go with the Republicans over their dissatisfaction with the war.

And so we'll get what we deserve.

Yep another Republican President without a friendly majority stuck cleaning up the previous Republican President's mess.

Ahh, smell the victory. Bush I cleaning up after Reagan comes to mind. He lasted what? 1 term...

Article was two pages too long, all the actual insights were in the first.

Cliffs notes for those who haven't been keeping up: Democrats are spineless cowards by design, 99% of whom are more interested in profiting from their current minority status than actually governing. Republicans, meanwhile, wave the right signal flags and bring out reliable, enthusiastic nitwits. Democrats have no such constituency because they're committed to the status quo and extremely short term political gain.

Who is actually excited to vote for mainstream democrats? That's right, partisan idiots, and there aren't nearly as many on the left as on the right, because so much of the left has lurched over to the "center" which is now somewhere left of autocracy.

But you already knew all this. The Democrats stand for nothing so they have no guiding principles. They don't even have an internal alliance of convenience like the Republicans do, they're just a mob of non-Republicans, plus some Republicans thrown in for kicks.


Since the American public has shown over and over again that it cannot be bothered to learn the most superficial information about any government policy, any party that wants to win must commit to ideals and, paradoxically, abstract concepts. If the Democrats say anything other than that the opposition will just say "nuh-uh" and you've got yourself a fattening dish of "controversy" which magically puts any idea in the realm of legitimacy no matter how insipid or evil it is.

Hillary: "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"

Finally, somebody gets it right. What good is freedom and opportunity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you cant get food on the table and a roof over your head? Why should the masses starve while some selected few eat, drink and party at our expense?

We have children living in the streets. The elderly living on scraps. People are being turned away from hospitals. Even hospitals are under attack and may be forced closed just because they serve the less fortunate (see Grady Hospital in Atlanta)

It is time these people, such as the Bush's, Rockefeller's, and Murdoch's, were cut down in size and all their ill gotten gain returned to those who toiled to put these so called "leaders" in the position they are in.

The democrats talk about how they are going to raise taxes on the rich. They are not going far enough. If you own more than $500,000 in money or property, it needs to be taken away and given to those who need it. What do you need with more than half a million dollars anyway?

One big thing that is impeding programs to help the poor are those vocal few who oppose these helpful processes. Those who oppose programs that help the poor and downtrodden need to be silenced. People (if you want to call them that) like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity need to be taught that there are those who need help. If Limbaugh and Co cannot grasp that concept, maybe they should be in Guantanamo.

We could take all the money that has been confiscated from the rich and then plow it back into health care with the government in charge of all operations. If the government were to take over health care, we would no longer have the corruption of hospitals, insurance and doctors. We could better encourage graduates to go into medicine as they would work for the government. The government could then decide what is needed for who and when, so unneeded and unwanted procedures would be stopped. If you want to circumvent and undermine the process, fine. You can get your health care while you are in jail.

If people would read Hillary's original health care plan, they would realize that it would be a pathway to ensure the well being of the people.

Why can't we get a guy like Biden in to the whitehouse? Isn't time we really got a mover and shaker in the bully-pullpit. I was truely impressed with his ideas during the debates. He said he would gut the military.....by stopping development of the new super nuke and all sorts of other pork programs that wouldn't effect readiness in the least.....every time he answered the moderators questions he delivered a actual solution or means to accomplish the objective and did not dither or vasilate or toss out some pie in the sky flowers and bull...it was refreshing to hear real tangible answers and not empty promises or empty rhetoric.......it really sucks that a guy that resonates with the truth and reason can't get elected........btw i think kusinich [sp?] should hve been allowed to debate too ....even if just to inspire some enlightened debate

portscanner We have children living in the streets. The elderly living on scraps.

It isn't 1935. Some (Dems) would like you to believe it is so you will buy what they are selling. We had 4.7% unemployment last month.

One big thing that is impeding programs to help the poor are those vocal few who oppose these helpful processes. Those who oppose programs that help the poor and downtrodden need to be silenced

Just the opposite is happening. What do you call the fairness doctrine? Social programs create dependence. Dependence creates poverty...and a voting block.

portscanner: Why should the masses starve while some selected few eat, drink and party at our expense?

Not sure if this is a troll or not, if so then well played sir!

I'm not sure where you live but it is hardly "masses" starving in the streets in the US.

portscanner:

...If the government were to take over health care, we would no longer have the corruption of hospitals, insurance and doctors. We could better encourage graduates to go into medicine as they would work for the government...

So you're saying that right now medicine does not attract a whole lot of highly intelligent, skilled, and motivated people? And that turning them all into government employees would make it so the best and brightest would all look at the money and research opportunities available in other industries or countries and decide they'd rather work for the government?

I think you're looking at it wrong.

I think it would be funny if Democrats lose in '08 simply because it would crush their souls. I just picture some neck-bearded tree-hugger who voted for Nader in 2000 & couldn't believe people would re-elect W. in '04 just sobbing brokenly in a corner if a Republican wins. And that's inspirational.

I still think the Democrats would widen their hold on Congress in 08, regardless of whether or not they win the Presidency. A lot people label the congress as "Do nothing", but truth be told, I think most now, if not by election, are pretty well aware that its Republicans hampering any kind of progress on the issues they want to see resolved. The Democrats only have a 1 seat Senate advantage, you know....


as far as the Presidency goes, I think Hillary will be the eventual nominee (though I'm glad to see Obama has made some recent gains), but she'll either be a complete shoe-in for the white house... or she'll completely alienate people like me who would only vote for her if she chooses a good running mate (Obama, in my case) or the Republican nominee is a complete jackass. And even if the latter is true, he'd have to have a serious chance of beating her in order for me to throw my vote her way.

rocinate721: If the Democrats lose, it will be because they are pissing away the momentum they got from the 2006 election ~ wholly based on the negative perception of the War in Iraq, which they have done NOTHING so far.

Here is a persuasive counter-argument that proposes that the Democrats feel their best strategy is to do nothing. It's a cynical strategy, no doubt, but they must feel it is effective.

The sad, unvarnished truth is that the Democrats are not weak or stupid. They're simply cynical manipulators.

They want the Republicans to succeed in obstructing the will of the people. And it's not rocket science to understand why.

They want people to be angry. They want people to feel helpless in the face of a president they strongly dislike. They want the Executive to appear all-powerful, and the obstruction of the Republican minority impassable. They want Republicans to be seen as getting their way, contrary to the will of the American People.

Why? Because it worked gangbusters in 2006. And they figure that if people get angry and stay angry at Bush, they'll vote for Democrats in '08.

portscanner: If people would read Hillary's original health care plan, they would realize that it would be a pathway to ensure the well being of the people.

Now that's a good troll. You could teach the career trolls a thing or two with a schtick like that. Well done, sir.

TFA has some good points. If the Dems screw this up by nominating Clinton or Edwards, I'm just going to start looking for jobs in Ottawa. I'm really not interested in living under another self-serving authoritarian; if Obama or Paul don't pass the primaries, I'm getting out before the whole thing sinks.

Snowflake Tubbybottom:
Their win in '06 had far more to do with "Macaca" and Foley in the final few weeks leading into the election than Iraq ever did as evidenced by their ever caving in on every supplemental spending bill.

That's really just silly rationalization.

If this reasoning is so, why have GOP approval numbers continued to plummet in the year since those elections? Why are the Dems far outraising the GOP?

While I would agree that 'Maccaca' probably gave the dems the Senate, the fact they were even in shooting distance had little to do with George Allen.

portscanner: Hillary: "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"

Finally, somebody gets it right. What good is freedom and opportunity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you cant get food on the table and a roof over your head? Why should the masses starve while some selected few eat, drink and party at our expense?

We have children living in the streets. The elderly living on scraps. People are being turned away from hospitals. Even hospitals are under attack and may be forced closed just because they serve the less fortunate (see Grady Hospital in Atlanta)

It is time these people, such as the Bush's, Rockefeller's, and Murdoch's, were cut down in size and all their ill gotten gain returned to those who toiled to put these so called "leaders" in the position they are in.

The democrats talk about how they are going to raise taxes on the rich. They are not going far enough. If you own more than $500,000 in money or property, it needs to be taken away and given to those who need it. What do you need with more than half a million dollars anyway?

One big thing that is impeding programs to help the poor are those vocal few who oppose these helpful processes. Those who oppose programs that help the poor and downtrodden need to be silenced. People (if you want to call them that) like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity need to be taught that there are those who need help. If Limbaugh and Co cannot grasp that concept, maybe they should be in Guantanamo.

We could take all the money that has been confiscated from the rich and then plow it back into health care with the government in charge of all operations. If the government were to take over health care, we would no longer have the corruption of hospitals, insurance and doctors. We could better encourage graduates to go into medicine as they would work for the government. The government could then decide what is needed for who and when, so unneeded and unwanted procedures would be stopped. If you want to circumvent and undermine the process, fine. You can get your health care while you are in jail.

If people would read Hillary's original health care plan, they would realize that it would be a pathway to ensure the well being of the people.

So, let's say you go to the bank and take out $200. You're walking down the street and you see a homeless guy. Do you give him all your money?

syrynxx: I think it would be funny if Democrats lose in '08 simply because it would crush their souls. I just picture some neck-bearded tree-hugger who voted for Nader in 2000 & couldn't believe people would re-elect W. in '04 just sobbing brokenly in a corner if a Republican wins. And that's inspirational.

I am not sure what gene causes misanthropy, but in case I want to start a study someday, can I have you swab your cheek for me?

Sarcasticus: So, let's say you go to the bank and take out $200. You're walking down the street and you see a homeless guy. Do you give him all your money?

Well, if portscanner had his way, the feds would sweep in and relieve him of having to make the decision.