For the love of Buddha, quit talking about Hillary Clinton unless you are announcing her retirement. She is a pox on politics in general and the "Democratic" politics in particular.

At least McCain's son is going into the Marines.

I watched a 21 year old graduate kick his ass on the podium at new school graduation a couple of months ago. In his own speach he was mumbling and taken aback by her words and the hostile environment. I cannot believe not one potential democratic candidate couldn't do better than a youngster (although a smart and charming one) after seeing that. He did not handle disagreement and disputed facts well at all.

This is called the planting of a meme: Start to discuss the idea that McCain is unbeatable and hope that the idea becomes common wisdom by 2008. This is a ploy Kevin, please don't feed it.

McCain is unbeatable or nearly so. The problem liberals have with understanding the electorate is that we are issue-oriented and not much effected by appearance or style. Not so the independent voter.. Many people, maybe half or one third of the voters, vote for "the best candidate" which means whoever strikes them as being a nice, sincere, trustworthy guy as perceived through the medium of TV. Liberals consistantly ignore or under values this but Republicans understand it very well; that's why their candiddates are so often actors or fakes.
Hillary can't win because she isn't likeable to independents and it is completely irrelevant how she frames things or how she tries to situate herself on the political spectrum. McCain is probably unbeatable becasue the only people who don't fall for his honorable statesman schtick are us left bloggers and the lunatic right. Everyone else thinks he's trustworthiness personified.
Some concrete evidence: NPR had interviews with Wisconsin Democrats who expressed a desire to vote for McCain because he seem to be a man of principle. Do not underestimate the importance of percieved trustworthiness; it is a great deal more important in determing how many, many people vote than issues.

What's happening to Lieberman seems to be emblematic of what's happening to the old guard in the Democratic Party.

Energetic and bright though he is, Bill Clinton is probably guarding turf -- old turf -- and that may skew his judgments about 2008. Then there's the fact that many Democrats just don't see Hillary as president -- and some openly dislike her because of her rightward turn and the moral slip showing in her support of the war. And my god, she's gotten boring, stale!

I don't think 2008 is going to look anything like most of the old Party think. It's pretty much out of their control.

John McCain -- the divorced, wife-cheating, Religious Right-pandering, Bush-hugging guy with the explosive temper? That unbeatable John McCain?

Since we're making wild unsubstaniated guesses about 2008 mine is that Al Gore will run and be judged unbeatable. Global warming and the economy will be huge issues by then and who else has more cred on those than Al. I just can't see McCain getting any traction after the Dem blow out in 2006 and subsequent investigations into Bush Co. Would he even want to face an angry Dem controlled House as pres, I wouldn't.

Doug-E-Fresh, you are exactly right. I don't believe McCain is unbeatable. A good majority of the American electorate have had it with Repub leadership. The Dems, even in their current condition, DO have chance at both Congress and the Presidency. This is a ploy.

I can verify among my friends who are Independents (and even some Democrats), they were talking about voting for McCain in 2000 had he won that primary. I think you are right, Lily.

I'd agree - McCain is still popular on both sides of the aisle among a lot of folks who don't dig to deeply into politics, not to mention with the crowd of pundits who fall for anything that can be labelled bipartisan. Couple that with the Republican's willingness to blame the misery of this administration on Bush not being Republican enough, and McCain is an easy win over Clinton, who the electorate also has preconceptions of. Other Democratic candidates would have a better shot, I think.

Kevin,
Seriously, the decisive determination of our nations future is not 2008, but 2006.
November is when we find out whether we continue our slide into totalitarianism, or we put the brakes to it as a Republic.
Not to sound bleak, but if the Republicans retain the congress, our nation is done for cause this would mean that the average American wants a totalitarian regime for a government.
It is 2006 that determines the course of our nation, not 2008. The 2008 elections (if they occur) will only reflect the results of the 2006 election.

A "ploy" by Steve Clemons AND Ezra Klein (I guess add Kevin Drum to the conspiracy as well)?

"I can verify among my friends who are Independents (and even some Democrats), they were talking about voting for McCain in 2000 had he won that primary."

I was one of those people too, until McCain bent over and grabbed his ankles for the Republican party.
Now he's just another Republican drone, floating on a memory, and hoping that no one notices his current political behavior.
Now, I'm dead set on voting against him regardless of whomever the Democrats put up. As far as I'm concerned, I'm voting Democrat straight across the board.

sheerahkahn, you're right. But if the Dems do win Congress they will conduct some investigations, however timidly, and a large aenough number of Americans will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is 2008. Possibly even Hillary. And I ain't no fan of Hillary.

Lily's right, if McCain makes it to the nomination. However, it's not clear to me that he could get through the primaries. Also, he's an old man. He'll be 70 this year and he isn't that healthy.

Hillary hasn't been to New Hampshire since the 1990s. She's not running in 2008, but her formidable cash flow dries up as soon as she announces it.

Independents determine the outcome of national elections. Neither party has the votes to win by appealing to base alone. So Democrats better smarten up and start studying independents igf we want to win the Presidency. Lesson #1: they don't vote on issues. They are quite happy to vote for a candiate who disagrees with them on issues, if the candiate seems to be a trustworty guy.
It won't matter a damn to them that McCain panders or that his "honorableness" is largely pretense or that he got divorced. They will care about all that about as much as they cared about Reagan's divorce, pandering, and pretensions.
Style matters. For many voters it matters far more than substance.

I don't know where this "Hillary '08" nonsense is coming from, but the notion of her running for president is absurd, and frankly, insulting.

We'll see, sheerahkahn.

J Bean:

Bill Clinton was in New Hampshire recently for her (read this about why the strategy is to keep her out of the State for now): http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/REPOSITORY/606270303/1043/NEWS01

Lily:

Think "Reagan Democrats" ; )

sheerahkahn,

Please, please do keep calling Bush and the Republicans "totalitarians." Or better yet, "fascists." Put it on your campaign posters. Put it in your TV ads. Put it in your speeches. Try to persuade all Democrat candidates to say it over and over again, as often as they can.

Kevin writes: We just can't afford another four years of Republican macho posturing in place of actually making progress against Osama and his buddies.

I don't like John McCain, not even a little, but he recognizes that global warming is a serious problem, and (with Joe Lieberman, who I don't like either) has proposed serious legislation to address it, and that is infinitely more important to the future of the USA and the entire world than whatever happens with regard to Osama Bin Laden.

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: Please, please do keep calling Bush and the Republicans "totalitarians." Or better yet, "fascists."

Or better yet, "assholes", asshole.

John McCain may seem like an affable guy when he hits the Daily Show or pops up on Good Morning America, but his foreign policy would be a gold-plated disaster.

The American people do not, collectively, elect the best future president. They elect the best candidate.

The problem liberals have with understanding the electorate is that we are issue-oriented and not much effected by appearance or style.

Yes, because McCain's 'maverick' schtick isn't at all a stylistic concoction with no real bearing on his positions or voting record, is it?

Democrats need to go for the long run. Winning the executive in 2008 would most likely be a disaster for the party. They would either have to stay the course and fall of a cliff in Iraq or pull out and be labeled cutters and runners. What a postition to be in. Don't be too anxious to get into this situation. I don't think enough voters are convinced how harmful the Republican program is. We need a good recession first and then Demos can come to the rescue with health care, taxes on the rich, full funding of social security and on and on.

McCain nominated by the GOP??? Please. He's as likely to be nominated by Republicans as Lieberman is by the Democrats.

I get the impression that Ezra's "folks in the know" are likely just trying to give credibility to their own thoughts by putting them in Bill Clinton's mouth, or are engaging in the noble task of trying to torpedo a Hillary nomination well in advance by the tawdry means of just making up a stories and hoping they become conventional wisdom.

Or both.

Or, a third possibility, is that it is what Clinton has said to other people, but not what he means.

I have exactly zero high level sources to my credit here, but this really doesn't sound right to me. McCain unbeatable? After eight years of a Republican presidency? Not only does that sound indefensible as a general proposition, but it doesn't sound like Bill Clinton, either.

Yeah. Its not Bill Clinton at all, if you take it at face value. Then again, if what Bill really thinks is that McCain will be the nominee and Hillary isn't ready for the kind of campaign that would be needed to beat him, he might well look for a way of discouraging her without coming right out and saying she's not ready for prime time.

So, I work at a State Republican Party Headquarters in Middle-America. Two things I can tell you for certain:

McCain will be unbeatable in a General Election. He's thrilling and entirely acceptable to the independent voter.

However, Let me assure for you that John McCain will never, ever be the GOP nominee. The loyal party sees him as false, and continually flirting with outright betrayal of the party. He has to get through Iowa. He maybe has a chance in New Hampshire, but nowhere else.

On this one I agree with you, Kevin.

1) No one is unbeatable.

2) No one believes this more than Bill Clinton, who announced for Prez when GHWBush was at 90% public approval.

A McCain presidency would be a huge disaster. He would cure global warming by bringing on a much bigger war than even Bush has thought of, thus making the planet unlivable before climate change could do it.
I think it was Kevin who dredged up his solution to Iraq: He would tell the Shi'as, Sunnis and Kurds to "cut the shit". This was actually pretty sophisticated geopolitical analysis for a man who has even greater faith in some abstract theory of "toughness" than Bush. And the McCain White House press corps(e) would make the Bush years look like the Golden Age of Charlie MacArthur and Ben Hecht.
I'm going to be rooting for Grover Norquist in the '08 primary season.

patrick: I cannot believe not one potential democratic candidate couldn't do better than a youngster

It's 2006. We're talking about the Democratic party. Bill Clinton is Constitutionally prohibited from being President again. Unfortunately 21 year olds are also prohibited.

Methinks that this is the Hillary-lovers' scheme to put the fear of God into the left, drop the Lamont campaign and support the centrist Dems.

Que sera sera, what will be will be.

The party that cries when terrorist phone calls are listened on to, weeping over the abridgement of terrorist rights, has no chance of victory.

The question becomes which republican will be president in 2008, and it seems likely that McCain is the answer.

Start to discuss the idea that McCain is unbeatable and hope that the idea becomes common wisdom by 2008. This is a ploy Kevin, please don't feed it.

Please do; if that's the conventional wisdom, even the slightest sign of life by a McCain opponent becomes a stunning victory, and anything McCain does that would be positive news is at best "expected".

The real fighters out there will still run hard, and do well, and the opportunists will be scared off.

The only downside is the danger of McCain losing the Republican primary to someone else who comes out with a lot of momentum from that win.

sheerahkahn,

Better yet, put any of SecularAnimist's lunatic rantings in your campaign materials. Please. I'm serious.

I myself, gave McCain $2000 in 2000.

Based on what I've learned about McCain since that time, I count this as among the top ten mistakes in my life. (McCain actually did return the money). I did want him to beat Bush - I sensed that Gore-Lieberman was a losing proposition (Gore-anyone-else had a much better chance) - and knowing what I knew about Bush BEFORE he was Governor, I knew he would be a terrible disaster.

Honestly, I think McCain jumped the shark for right-leaning Dems and Independents with the Pat Robertson tongue-kissing. And he jumped the shark for Hawks with the Torture Bill. And he jumped the shark with "Macho Republicanism" movement conservatives when he bent over for GWB after the Bush campaign slimed him.

I think that nobody here knows who will be the party reps for each party today. And I suspect there will be a strong third-party spoiler. Another Perot?

For all that was made of Bush's dirty Rovian smear campaign against McCain in the 2000 primaries, the truth is that McCain really is prone to occasionally fits of being a batshit insane old man. He can be attacked on this front, and he is capable of making a mistake because of it. So he is in no way unbeatable.

I know several plumbers who would make more effective ex-presidents. Bill Clinton needs a primary opponent.

I also know several hairy lesbians who would vote for McCain in a heart beat. For that reason, I'm praying to Jesus that the radiation damage to his left frontal lobe causes him to start releasing random outbursts of Janet Reno jokes in front of political audiences. With my luck he'll start in December '08.

Did anyone mention that the Press seems to love McCain?

American Hawk wrote: The party that cries when terrorist phone calls are listened on to, weeping over the abridgement of terrorist rights, has no chance of victory.

It's because Republicans have nothing to offer America but inane bullshit like that, that they have to steal elections to gain power.

Claims from "people in the know" are the bane of Democratic politics, and especially of the Clintons. Note that Clemons lists Bill Clinton as the strongest proponent of her run while Klein has him as the most opposed. The fact is that Hillary and her staff are notoriously private about her plans and anyone talking to outsiders about them doesn't know anything. So we can conclude from this that on the topic of Hillary Clinton Clemons and Klein have very poor sources.

I say let McCain clean up after the idiot GW. I'd love to see the GOP having to actually deal with the mess they've made. The democrats can take back over the house and senate and investigate all this criminal, traitorous activity and who better than a republican president to answer for it? Put his ass on the hot seat. It'll kill him.

Repubs should nominate Lieberman for 2008. He is the one who is unbeatable, not McCain.

And they should have Frist has the VP nominee.

Unbeatable pair.

I don't like John McCain, not even a little, but he recognizes that global warming is a serious problem, and (with Joe Lieberman, who I don't like either) has proposed serious legislation to address it

He proposed showpiece legislation with Joe Lieberman that he knew would fail so that he would get the credit for having tried, and he has promised to fight global warming as effectively as he fights money in politics.

And, you know, that last promise is probably entirely honest.

In 2008, when gas is over $5 per gallon and inflation and unemployment are both in the double digits, we shall see how unbeatable McCain is.

Not to sound bleak, but if the Republicans retain the congress, our nation is done for cause this would mean that the average American wants a totalitarian regime for a government.

If Republicans retain the congress, it's because Rove was able to steal the elections. Again.

Hey, people, learn the facts of the last 2 elections, and stop swallowing the media spin. There have been a few legitimate books by respected investigators, breaking it down, but books by people like Ann Coulter suck all the oxygen from their coverage.

Read Palast's latest book. He spells it out how Repubs did it. Did you know that Choicepoint has gone international, and did in Mexico what it did in Florida/2000.

We don't have the luxury of just going to the polls and casting a ballot. We have to get involved in the whole process. We have to also work the preceincts, and organize the people into not sitting still for the theft of our democracy.

The fact is that Hillary and her staff are notoriously private about her plans and anyone talking to outsiders about them doesn't know anything.

Bill Clinton is not a member of Hillary Clinton's staff.

So we can conclude from this that on the topic of Hillary Clinton Clemons and Klein have very poor sources.

Or that Bill Clinton is sending mixed signals about her potential candidacy. Or, well, lots of other possibilities are just as likely.

What cmdicely said. Global warming legislation is the perfect answer for folks who want to reach across the isle and get nothing done. If it looked like it was passing he'd probably crap his pants.

SecularAnimist: It's because Republicans have nothing to offer America but inane bullshit like that, that they have to steal elections to gain power.

Awwwww, how adorable! It's a cute little conspiracy theorist. Keep living in denial. It's charming *and* easier than moving the democrat party to the mainstream.

I want to add that Bill might have valid reasons for not wanting Hillary to run other than McCain being "unbeatable." I'm old enough to remember how inevitable Ted Kennedy was against sad sack Jimminy Carter, until he announced and immediately collapsed like a wet paper bag. Hillary has the personality and work ethic to be a good Senator, she should focus on taking over Ted's mantle as voice of the left in that body, not try to outkiss babies in Iowa.

the truth is that McCain really is prone to occasionally fits of being a batshit insane old man. He can be attacked on this front

It is a sign of just how weak, disorganized and consumed by anger and frustration the far left is that its political activism consists almost entirely of attacks on Republicans and, to a lesser but still considerable extent, moderate Democrats. It is almost entirely devoid of any serious effort to offer a positive alternative vision to Americans, of any effort to attract people to something good rather than repel them from something bad. I guess being consigned to the margins of political life for so long will do that to you. The religious right is much the same.

I second razorboy's motion and say we let McCain clean up after the idiot GW. We can talk about a Democrat in the White House again in 2015.

^

That's an excellent point. You know the democrat party is in trouble when its fundraising base invests its money in unseating a democrat senator...

Don't worry Bobbo, we'll always have Diebold. Bwahahahaha.

In 2008, when gas is over $5 per gallon and inflation and unemployment are both in the double digits, ....

Yes, but what do your goat entrails say about who will win the Eurovision Song Contest in '08?

>It is a sign of just how weak, disorganized and consumed by anger and frustration the far left is that its political activism consists almost entirely of attacks on Republicans

That's funny. Really. Project much?

Independents determine the outcome of national elections. Posted by: lily

Duh. But that's because very few Americans who bother to vote are dyed-in-the-wool Rethugs or Democrats.

Global warming legislation is the perfect answer for folks who want to reach across the isle and get nothing done.

A pretty good description of the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that is all about being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something.

Or that Bill Clinton is sending mixed signals about her potential candidacy. Or, well, lots of other possibilities are just as likely.

I've read elsewhere that Bill is more anxious for Hillary to run than Hillary. It's hard to believe he is afraid of McCain or anyone else. Besides, this is almost certainly Hillary's only real shot. She'd be over 65 in 2012 and there will be a loss of between 5 and 10 blue state electorial votes due to the 2010 census. Even worse would be the election of different Democrat in 2008.

Hillary is unusually important in 2008 because she's determine the winner of both primaries. She's an automatic for the Democratic nomination. She is also McCains only shot at the GOP nomination. Conservatives hate McCain. he can only win if Conservatives see him as a Hillary repellant. McCains strongest opposition will be Rudy for the same reason. Both would normally be too liberal.

If Hillary were to drop out McCain would be finished.

There's only one thing that could suppress Bill. There's a legit fear people have Bush / Clinton fatigue and will not vote for her.

It is almost entirely devoid of any serious effort to offer a positive alternative vision to Americans,

Aren't you the guy who spends most of his time here denying that there is any problem to address everytime a liberal policy alternative is floated?

Yeah, whatever, Don GOP.

TK,

That's funny. Really.

Is it? The GOP controls the presidency, both chambers of congress, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships. Most of the rest is controlled by centrist Democrats. What do liberal Democrats control?

Project much?

You really are in deep, deep, deep denial, aren't you?

"A pretty good description of the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that is all about being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something."

Actually a pretty good scheme by the association of manufactures. Move the bulk of American production to China. Use proxy factories, pollute, screw labor and make mega profits. Sounds like a republican trifecta to me.

I'm old enough to remember how inevitable Ted Kennedy was against sad sack Jimminy Carter,

Jimmy was very beatable but Teddy was an awful candidate. He's an abomination of a human being. Are you even slightly aware of his history?

neo,

what is a proxy factory?

McCain has a black child! Gasp! And he's crazy because he spent all that time in a tiger cage in Nam. Better watch out, he's unstable!

That was the GOP line 6 years ago.

Now he's their best hope? Bwahahahahahahahahha!

Oh I can't wait for McCain to debate John Hagee's equivalent in the psycho bible humper wing of the GOP. Roy Moore perhaps? How about some loon that doesn't believe in evolution?

McCain has proven himself to be just as bad as a pandering ass kissing politician as Hilary is.

Further, john, further, get that nose up Falwell's anus as fast as possible!

rdw,
vendor, sub contractor you know exactly what I'm talking about.

And I wonder, when MCCain's 18 yr old son comes back from Iraq in a body bag or missing his legs, how will make him feel, Proud?

Sweet Jesus, could we as Democrats be so lucky as to have McCain as the Republican nominee? Against, well, anyone with a pulse. A guy who melted down so completely and memorably against a nonentity like GEORGE W BUSH! I suspect that if the Big Dog is describing McCain as unbeatable, he intends that message more for elephant than donkey ears.

cmdicely

Aren't you the guy who spends most of his time here denying that there is any problem to address everytime a liberal policy alternative is floated?

Nonsense. Huh? Yes, it is. No, it isn't. It's hard to understand what "most of his time" means. So you think there's a problem to address, do you? Looney left rage-filled marginal fringists. God damn, I hate you fucking Catholics.

rdw,

I agree completely that Ted is an abomination. My point was that the hagiography of the Kennedy name was strong enough to overcome his deficiencies, until he officially declared his candidacy.

what is a proxy factory?
Posted by: rdw

like halliburton using mercenaries instead of soldiers in iraq.

Kevin,

There is so much wrong with what you cited here it's unbelievable. The repubs are in serious trouble doesn't matter who runs in 2008. Bill Clinton not wanting wife as pres is stupid. The man fundamentally needs to be back in a leadership position. As Hill's first husband he would be the most powerful unelected official in the US. If Hill doesn't run what else is he going to do with himself?

Reid is a great Senate Leader. Hill has yet to prove that she can lead. Today's Rumsfeld thrashing is a start but she's got to deliver so real punishment to the administration and its mafiaosa. Reid needs to remain in the position he has rightfully earned.

Any dem presidential contender needs to be way out there in the president and vice president's face, calmly and consistently. A successful Dem challenger needs to dismantle Cheney in the Bill Clinton/Barak Obama rhetoric tradition. They need to show how corrupt the government at all levels has become under "conservative" control, be unashamedly for Social Security and Net Neutralit, as well as for transparent accountability in the executive and congress, the war failure and its dangerously incomptent advocates can be trotted out at will to totally undercut any message of republican "strength" via military leadership bs, also the contender should be willing to address the budget mess by talking defense spending cuts and tax raises on the wealthy and corporations that have benefites from the Bush kleptocracy. Moral issues should be based on a social justice pillar, as well as swords to plowshares for economic domestic policy.

vendor, sub contractor you know exactly what I'm talking about.

No, I don't. But pointing out the transfer of manufacturing capacity to the 3rd world is dead on. It's just one of the really dumb effects mandated by Kyoto.

Kyoto will go down as the dumbest treaty ever negotiated in the history of man.

Keep an eye on Canada. This will be one of the great political/environmental stories of the next decade. This will be the example for the next two generations of why we should never put the UN in charge of anything.

Canada signed Kyoto. The USA refused. It would be ironic and more than a little bit embarrasing if the USA did better job managing pollution. It would be humiliating of they did a much better job. It would be especially humiliating if Canada turned out to be the worst polluter under Kyoto and did not come close to the USA.

You of course have heard of ANWR and the Tar Sands. It's ironic that because we cannot pump from ANWR, a fairly benign source, we must now increase imports from the Tar Sands, the worst polluting source in ther world. The USA gets the oil. Canada gets the pollution. How's that for a deal.

Best of all we get to watch this train wreck in slow motion knowing well in advance it's coming but can't stop it. We now know for a fact Canada will be the worst polluter under Kyoto and the USA is doing a far better job lowering emissions.

I've read elsewhere that Bill is more anxious for Hillary to run than Hillary.

I've read elsewhere that -1 × -1 = 1 is stupid, too. Just because you read something "elsewhere" doesn't make it true.

My point was that the hagiography of the Kennedy name was strong enough to overcome his deficiencies, until he officially declared his candidacy.

Only among the kool-aid drinkers. Obviously we both agree he's one of the most repulsive people ever to be in politics and that's saying something.

The Dems need to run someone who is honest with the American People. Someone who will say over and over:

Bush lied to us about Iraq.
Bush lied to us about Social Security.
Bush lied to us about taxes.

The people need to have the truth rubbed in their faces.

It's ironic that because we cannot pump from ANWR, a fairly benign source, we must now increase imports from the Tar Sands, the worst polluting source in ther world.

Not nearly as bad as coal. Not as bad as mismanaged nuclear. Way better than leaking oil tankers.

cmdicely,

Aren't you the guy who spends most of his time here denying that there is any problem to address everytime a liberal policy alternative is floated?

Oh please. What "liberal policy alternative?" 95% of the liberal political commentary on this blog consists of brain-dead repetitions of "Bush sucks!" I have never seen anything here remotely resembling a serious policy proposal on any significant issue, from health care to global warming.

Yeah, whatever, Don GOP.

Alright, Blanche.

I don't know where this "Hillary '08" nonsense is coming from, but the notion of her running for president is absurd, and frankly, insulting.

It is a sign of just how weak, disorganized and consumed by anger and frustration the far left is that its political activism consists almost entirely of attacks on Republicans

Hillary Clinton is another Jew. And Jews believe weird things. What about McCain?

GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE, THE ARABS.

The mad Jews believe many strange things.

One such strange belief is that G_D has promised them the area of land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

However, this belief is entirely mistaken. In Genesis 15:18

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

the descendants of Abraham are promised the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, however, in Genesis 17:8

"And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

the descendants of Abraham's younger son, Isaac (which includes as a small portion, the Jews) are promised Canaan (the so-called promised land).

So then, according to the Torah, the Jews (together with the Israelites) have only been promised Canaan. And that is all they get, for in Joshua 21:43 & 45

"And the LORD gave unto Israel ALL THE LAND which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein..... There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass."

G_D says that the Israelites and Jews have already possessed all the land promised to them. That's it, no more for the Jews.

So, since it is not the Jews that got the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, which descendants of Abraham did get it.

Well, by observation, it is clear that the descendants of Abraham's eldest son, Ishmael, got it.

That is, the Arabs were promised the area of land from the Nile to the Euphrates, and G_D gave it to them.

So, the Jews are disobeying G_D when they try to force the Arabs from their G_D given home.

I've read elsewhere that -1 × -1 = 1 is stupid, too. Just because you read something "elsewhere" doesn't make it true.

I take it you consider this a pithy comment? If you read Kevins post you'd see his own skepticism the basis of the topic is even true. It's unsourced hearsay. I can understand your frustration. Here you are a lifelong Democrat and Hillary Clinton, and Hillary alone, gets to decide if she wants to be the nominee. If she decides she wants it then it's hers. If she doesn't want it she will probably play king-maker with her husband.

Either way, your party is owned by the Clintons and let's think how well that's worked out. Hmmm, in 1992 the Dems had 57 Senators and 258 Congressmen. Now it's 44 and 202. The Clintons have been magical, for republicans, and yet they STILL run your party.

watcher is a self-loathing Jew.

Well, by observation, it is clear that the descendants of Abraham's eldest son, Ishmael, got it.

No. It's not clear. First of all, Ishmael was illegitimate. ie. A BASTARD. Second of all - there's no clear lineage in either the Torah, or the Koran, from Ishmael to modern-day Arabs. Nor is there any promise from G_D, Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for any land for them. Yes, there is a blessing for Ishmael and his descendants. But that blessing is decidedly not as grand as the one promised to Isaac's descendants.

Anyway, I think you're stretching to read meaning into something that's not there.
Don't forget. The Bible also says that Pi=3.0. If that were the case, your head would be hexagonal instead of round. Then again, that would explain the point on the top. . .

Back in 2000, those nasty, bitter anti-McCain ads were paid by the bush campaign. In 2007/2008, we will see those ads rerun on TV, only this time, paid for by the Democrats. Those ads were why McCain lost to bush, and those ads will help McCain lose yet again.

McCain may or may not be the GOP presidential nominee in 2008 and may or may not win if he is. He's certainly not unbeatable, but it's hard to think of a credible Democrat opponent at the moment. In any case, I wasn't talking about negative campaigning, I was talking about attack as the basis for your entire political philosophy. That's what you've come to. You gave up on trying to promote any kind of positive alternative vision of your own a long time ago.

The Dems need to run someone who is honest with the American People. Someone who will say over and over:
Bush lied to us about Iraq.
Bush lied to us about Social Security.
Bush lied to us about taxes.

A perfect example of what I was just talking about.

What part of unmitigated disaster that Iraq plainly is do Dem slicsters and bloviating pundents not understand? Did they not watch Rumsfeld, Abazaid, and Pace testify before the Senate Armed Services Committe today? Even ole straight talk can't talk himself out of the disaster he and the rest his co-conspiriters have placed our country. What Bill might be afraid of is Hillary's vote to take us to war. She tried to rehabilitate herself today questioning Rumsfeld and his poor handeling of the war but she's just jumping on the bandwagon after waiting too long.

Not nearly as bad as coal. Not as bad as mismanaged nuclear. Way better than leaking oil tankers.

The Tar Sands are much worse than coal and nothing is as clean as Nuclear. Nuclear will be the big winner with this recent price run-up and the over-the-top angst about global warming. There will be a building boom in Asia and Europe for nuclear reactors and there will be at least a dozen in the Southerm USA.

rdw:

We can only hope re: nuclear. As I understand Kyoto, Canada will end up paying HUGE fines to China and Russia too. Sweet revenge.

Foreign policy is completely meaningless to 80% of voters. They vote for the guy they personally like and who the press covers most positively. Jesus Christ couldn't beat McCain unless Johnny got caught in a late October barnyard orgy.

Two points;

1) McCain WILL BE unbeatable. The corporate media is totally in the tank for him. They are practically groupies. They will prop him up, trash/sabotage his opponents, both in the primary and general election. McCain is the favorate of not just the GOP establishment but also the political/journalism establishment in Washington which is increasingly right leaning. David Broders, Tim Russerts adore him.

2) Harry Reid cannot make Hillary the Dem Senate leader. He doesn't have the power to do it.

She tried to rehabilitate herself today questioning Rumsfeld and his poor handeling of the war but she's just jumping on the bandwagon after waiting too long.

It's the ironies that make politics so interesting. The strongest Democratic candidate by far will have as her major weakness her support for a GOP 'war'. The negative effect might not be enough to deny her the nomination but might be enough to drive a 3rd party candidate to run from the left and serve as Al Gore's Ralph Nader. Wouldn't that be something if Hillary were strong enough to win the nomination but not strong enough to win the prize because of Iraq?

It also looks as thought Iraq is going to end Joe Leibermans career. Your VP candidate just 6 years ago is getting tosed out on his ear.

Please, please do keep calling Bush and the Republicans "totalitarians." Or better yet, "fascists."

Y'know, I think "authoritarian" works just fine.

From the link I provided above:

If and when [Hillary] does visit New Hampshire, it will mark the moment the primary season officially begins, several primary activists and observers said.

"At that point, it will be all horses out of the gate," said George Bruno, a former state Democratic Party chairman who served as ambassador to Belize under President Clinton.

State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a prominent figure in Democratic circles, said Hillary Clinton is wise to avoid New Hampshire while she seeks re-election and builds her campaign war chest. "You're always better before you announce," the Manchester senator said. "You're always perceived of as the answer to every maiden's prayer. You ought to keep that going as long as you can before you have to make a decision."

Clinton has an advantage over other Democrats in fundraising ability and name recognition. She also already has New Hampshire connections from her husband's presidential campaigns. T hat means she doesn't need to do the legwork that others are trying to accomplish at this stage, said D'Allesandro, whose endorsement went to John Edwards in 2004.

Although official campaigns don't tend to get launched until after the midterm elections, would-be presidential candidates often spend the prior year - the current period - making occasional visits to New Hampshire. At this stage, they're not reaching out to voters; rather, they're trying to meet with prominent party members and activists, get a feel for New Hampshire and gain a sense of how their campaigns would be received. They also want to leave people "wanting a little bit more of them," D'Allesandro said. Clinton already has the A-list contacts and the public anticipation on her side, he said.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said that advantage will carry her to a point. "She doesn't have to do the first 20 visits," he said. "But that doesn't mean she doesn't have to do the following 20 visits."

I haven't read any of the chat, just Kevin's post.

The Dems have already lost the 2008 Presidential election?

WTF???

McCain is unbeatable???

Jesus H Christ.

As I understand Kyoto, Canada will end up paying HUGE fines to China and Russia too. Sweet revenge.

Absolutely! Of Course this will never happen but it's going to be fun watching the eco-freaks change the rules to prevent this disaster. They have no choice. Note: a very similar situation is playing out in New Zealand. They've been very critical of Australia for not signing Kyoto while they did sign. It goes without saying Australia has a much better record than New Zealand and under the current accord, could be bankrupted by the fines.

Kyoto is absoloutely and totally dead. The fun will be watching the unravelling and listening to the folks at Fox and on talk radio laughing at the morons who signed on.

McCain is the favorate of not just the GOP establishment

The GOP establishment cannot stand McCain. He can't win without Hillary.

Foreign policy is completely meaningless to 80% of voters. They vote for the guy they personally like and who the press covers most positively

McCains problem is not the general election. His problem is the GOP primaries. Here his strength among independents and moderates is meaningless. He needs support from conservatives and you're point about foreign policy is backwords. Foreign policy is very important and that will be one of McCains strengths. But he's wrong on taxes, campaign finance and judges among other things. He needs Hillary because conservatives think he's got the best shot of beating her.

Don GOP:

...but it's hard to think of a credible Democrat opponent at the moment.

It's always hard for you to think, and that someone who goes by the moniker "GOP" can't think of a credible Democratic opponent two years out from a Presidential election isn't saying much (or even use the right form of "Democrat" for its use in a sentence) isn't really saying much.

Heck, even if it wasn't for partisan bias, it wouldn't be saying much: how many people would have picked Bill Clinton as a viable Democratic candidate in 1990?

McCains problem is not the general election.

Well, if he stood a whelk's chance in a supernova of making it to the general election, then it might be more worthwhile to consider whether it would be a problem; honestly, I think he loses there. He's got a lot of "not paying much attention but he sounds good" warm fuzzies, but I think those get clipped off in the rough and tumble of an election.

Of course, if the Dems run as bad a campaign as 2000, that's not so true.

John McCain went nuts when he was forced to play russian roulette by the NVA while in captivity.
He is a Manchurian candidate who will normalize our relationship with Vietnam and make us all buy Tran Anh Hung movies on DVD. Plus his wife is an oxy addict and he fathered the child of an underage Mexican girl thus creating one more beaner citizen.

plus he loses his composure quite rapidly (and unprofessionally) when confronted by either bush's thugs or a graduating 20-something.

Blanche,

It's always hard for you to think,

It's always impossible for you to think.

Do you please identify your alleged credible Democrat opponents to McCain. This should be good for a laugh.

GOP:

Al Gore

Bob

". . . needs support from conservatives and you're [sic] point about foreign policy is backwords {sic]."

rdw, you are a gift to parodists everywhere. All of your words are "backwords." What a nincompoop! I love it!

Y'know, I think "authoritarian" works just fine.

Apparently not for most of your foaming-at-the-mouth fellow members of the loony left on this blog. They can barely exercise enough restraint to call Bush merely a fascist.

Jesus, so much silliness in one post/thread.

This doesn't sound like Bill Clinton's opinion -- or, put better, if it is, he's not the genius political strategist he's purported to be. No candidate is a sure winner, no candidate is a sure loser; it all depends on the circumstances of the election year. And all signs point to 2008 being an extremely difficult year for ANY Republican.

Read Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency sometime. His theory (borne out by almost a century and a half's election results) is that all presidential elections are referenda on the incumbent party, regardless of whether the incumbent is the actual candidate. Attempted replacements have always suffered for their parties' sins: Bryan lost because of the Cleveland depression; Humphrey carried Johnson's war on his back. McCain -- even presuming he could survive the loathing of the right wing in the primary -- would, like it or not, be defending George Bush's record in '08, and it won't be any prettier than it is today (if the housing bust comes on schedule, it could be far worse). People like Lily persist in believing people vote mindlessly for a persona, but actual history shows they judge on the preponderance of the evidence and vote up or down -- sometimes narrowly enough to be slipped around (as in 2000), but generally with purpose.

I'm not remotely crazy about Hillary as the standard-bearer for many reasons, but fear she's "unelectable" or anyone else is "unbeatable" are not among them.

DRUM: "RETURN TO APPEASEMENT!"

"Macho posturing."

That's just the view Neville Chamberlin took toward silly Winston Churchill in 1935-1939: no more "macho posturing". Whatever you think if Bush II's foreign policy, any Democratic foreign policy, whether of the KosKids moonbat or DLC variety, would be as disasterous as LBJ's and Carter's and Clinton's. In case you don't find Clinton's disastarous, his appeasement for 8 years made North Korea and Iraq and Iran stronger relative to us with each passing day. That's not diplomacy, i.e., win-win. That's surrender, i.e., we lose gradually. And it's peace of a kind, i.e., for those 8 years; the same peace the Allies enjoyed on August 31, 1939 when FDR and his fellow international sychophants rolled over for Hitler's violation of Germany's treaties with them (including the U.S. and FDR!). Then, beginning the next week, 60 million people died in WW II, 1 million Americans. That is a FDR-Clinton-Democrat peace for you.

Deposing Saddam was the prudent move in and of itself. Iraq is not going well because we're sacrificing U.S. soldiers so that fewer Iraqis might die in this democratization process, not because we invaded Iraq per se. I think we had to try this approach, but it's time to end it. Let Iraq have it's Civil War; it will settle the issues amongst them as ours did, with regrettable loss of life. But, we could not stop ours, apparently, so it would surprise me if we can stop theirs. Then, after the bloodshed, we'll help them on our terms, i.e., when the loss of a U.S. soldier's life is rare.

TOH

I received a phone call from a nice young man who told me that John McCain had a child out of wedlock with a negro lady. So I'll never be voting for him.

Ah, the Incontinent Historian makes his deposit on the thread.

"there's no clear lineage in either the Torah, or the Koran, from Ishmael to modern-day Arabs."

I find that rather pathetic, as their is also no clear lineage in either the Torah, or the Koran, from Judah (the father of the Jews) to modern-day Jews.

In fact all the evidence shows that the Polish/Russian Jews are Khazars (a Turkish tribe from southern Russia) converts.

And that the Spanish Jew are descendants from Jews who accompanied the Arabs to Spain and later interbred with the German (Visigoth) royalty there.

Joel,

It would be too easy; like kicking a puppy.

TOH

His theory (borne out by almost a century and a half's election results) is that all presidential elections are referenda on the incumbent party, regardless of whether the incumbent is the actual candidate. Attempted replacements have always suffered for their parties' sins:

How did that work for 2000 after the boom times and peace of Bill Clinton? Al should have won in a landslide.

The candidate matters much more than the previous administration, especially when none of the candidates are part of the previous administration.

rmck1,

Gore might become a credible opponent, especially with all the recent media shtick about his "rehabilitation," but it seems unlikely.

In this poll, from May of this year, a mere 28% of respondents said they had a favorable view of Al Gore.

saw a post on Kos or maybe Atrios that argues the exact opposite. Big Dog wants her to run, but HRC isn't all that enthusiastic. Senate Majority Leader is perfect for her since her entire life is one big compromise. Mansfiled Dirksen, Byrd Baker, Mitchell Dole - will Clinton McConnell join the list as the towering figures of the Senate in the new century.

"It would be too easy; like kicking a puppy."

Yeah, I can see it would come easy for you.

"Al should have won in a landslide."

And more Americans voted for him than for Bush.

Please don't feed the trolls like Watcher.

In the summer of 1990, President Bush had super-high approval ratings. At the time the media discussed how no Democrat wanted to go up against him in 1992. Look how that turned out. Two years is way too far out to be making these kinds of predictions.

As for McCain, I've said it before and I'll say it again: he's falling apart. McCain comes across more and more as petty, old and pathetic. And by "old" I don't mean Reagan's grandfatherly old, but bitter old man. By 2008, he'll be a shell of his former self, which was artificial to begin with. If he even manages to become the Republican nominee, he'll have one or two public blow-ups during the campaign, and those will bury him. Compare his recent interviews to those from 2000 -- the man is losing it.

I also predict, if Rice runs, she'll cry during one of the primary debates. You heard it here first.

Nonsense.

Papjijo nails it!

Unless you really believe that the GOP will nominate an adulterer, both Giuliani and McCain are out of the running. They'd both make good candidates in the general election, but neither stands a chance of getting nominated.

Only a loony left foaming at the mouth Bush hater would say that.

McCain is ill and too old.

It's hard to know what "ill and too old" is supposed to mean.

"Only a loony left foaming at the mouth Bush hater would say that."

Shorter GOP: "OMG, they're right!"

mfw13:

Ronald Reagan was elected as the first divorced President.

No they're not.

Well, if he stood a whelk's chance in a supernova of making it to the general election, then it might be more worthwhile to consider whether it would be a problem; honestly, I think he loses there. He's got a lot of "not paying much attention but he sounds good" warm fuzzies,

I can't stand McCain so I hope you are correct but with Hillary in the race the GOP primary could be a repeat of the 2004 Democratic primaries when few people liked Kerry but once he was identified as the candidate who could beat Bush he got the anti-bush crowd and won the primaries easily.

McCain is most popular with moderates in each party and independents. Liberals voted for Kerry as the one guy who could beat Bush. If Conservatives see McCain in the same way they'll bite their tongues and vote for John. If he were to get the nomination he wins the general election easily.

Hillary's only chance would be a 3rd party candidate on the right. I'd argue a 3rd party candidate on the left would be far more likely.

If Hillary were to announce she's not running McCain would be toast.

"It's hard to know what "ill and too old" is supposed to mean."

In this case, it means McCain.

bera:

Reagan was 70 when he was elected.

Huh?

"No they're not."

Shorter GOP: "They are."

McCain will be 70 on August 29th, so that means 72-years old in 2008, 73 on Inauguration Day, 2009 - is that really TOO old? I'm 67.

And more Americans voted for him than for Bush.

That's called poetic justice. I could not have written a better script. How many liberals have driven themselves crazy how many times knowing Al 'really won'. Except he didn't.

No they're not.

Clinton just doesn't want Hillary to run. It has nothing to do with McCain.

"No they're not."

Shorter GOP: "Huh?"

I have already explained that. Present your evidence to the contrary.

thomas,

McCain is safe here but Rudy has a problem. His split from his wife was ugly and he shares responsibility.

Reagans divorce was initiated by his wife and she refused to allow it to become a public issue. He had been remarried successfully for a long period by the time he ran.

"I have already explained that. Present your evidence to the contrary."

Shorter GOP: "I got nothin'"

Nothing will stop the insane Bush hating Democrat party from its campaign to criticize instead of presenting viable alternatives.

"Nothing will stop the insane Bush hating Democrat party from its campaign to criticize instead of presenting viable alternatives."

Shorter GOP: "I got nothin' but epithets."

I agree in that assessment, at least, GOP. Now, will the world situation be such that said hate will be enough to win?

Joel, shut the fuck up.

"I agree in that assessment, at least, GOP."

Heh.

Fools seldom differ.

Joel:

If you don't think Independents out here in the real world are just about that close to saying: "A pox on both your houses", you are sorely mistaken.

Stefan, shut the fuck up yourself you ignorant piece of trash.

Do you have anything substantive to add, Joel, or can you not turn away from your loony spit-flecking anti-Bush rants for long enough to consider the topic of this thread?

Are you Catholic, by the way?

Electing Jews like Hillary Clinton (and probably McCain) is a sure way to destroy America.

Thomas, I sure as hell wouldn't take your word for it. You're about as remote from reality as it gets.

as he believes McCain will be the 2008 nominee and no Democrat can defeat him

I don't believe a word of it. First, the idea that McCain can even get the Republican nomination is far from obvious, and second, is Ezra old enough to remember that Bill Clinton was one of the seven dwarves who ran in 1992 against the unbeatable George Bush senior?

The Dems don't have anyone to match McCain.

Huh? Present your evidence that Bill Clinton or any other Democrat candidate in 1992 was a "dwarf."

Yes, McCain is too old (73 when he would take office; approaching 80 for Term 2), and too ill (his affliction is right there on his face).

Furthermore, he lacks the judgment that sometimes comes with age.

No, even if I were a Republican, he wouldn't be my man.

But this is a matter that is largely out of our hands.

Bush, as we have seen, is a front man for exceedingly wealthy, powerful entities. Of course they now realize they bought a pig in a poke when they installed Sonny in office.

The next time around they will be more selective. And McCain just won't do.

After all, electing Jews like GW Bush has already done incredible harm to America.

George W Bush is a Jew (who pretends to be a Christian)!

This partly explains the weirdness of the man and why he never acts like a Christian.

Here, have a look at him praying at the Wailing Wall.

He could be praying to Allah, but it doesn't look like it. And what is that funny cap thing on his head?

Yes, Bush is a Jew, he has Jews all through his family tree.

For example, Levi Pierce and his mother Barbara Pierce (Levi and Barbara are related) are both Jews.

Pierce is an Americanization of the Jewish name Perez/Peretz/Peres. The name is of Hebrew origin. According to Genesis 38, Pharez (the spelling Perez is also used (in the First Book of Chronicles)) was a son of Judah born to Tamar (who incidentally, was Judah's daughter in law (Judah, the father of the Jews, was a dirty old man)).

In case you are interested Levi and Barbara Pierce are related as follows:

Thomas Holbrook (d. 1677) m. Jane Powys
.John Holbrook m. Elizabeth Stream
|.Hannah Holbrook m. Ephraim Pierce
| .Ephraim Pierce m. Mary Low
|  .Mial Pierce m. Judith Round
|   .Nathan Pierce m. Lydia Martin
|    .Isaac Pierce m. Anna Fitch
|     .LEVI PIERCE m. Betsey Slade Wheeler
|      .Elizabeth Slade Pierce m. Courtland Philip Livingston Butler
|       .Mary Elizabeth Butler m. Robert Emmet Sheldon
|        .Flora Sheldon m. Samuel Prescott Bush
|         .Prescott Sheldon Bush m. Dorothy Walker
|          .GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH m. Barbara Pierce
|           .GEORGE W. BUSH, US President
.Thomas Holbrook m. Jane Kingman
 .Peter Holbrook m. Alice Godfrey
  .Sylvanus Holbrook m. Naomi Cook
   .John Holbrook m. Zilpah Thayer
    .John Holbrook m. Rhoda Thayer
     .John Holbrook m. Mercy Hill
      .Chloe Holbrook m. James Pierce
       .Jonas James Pierce m. Kate Pritzel
        .Scott Pierce m. Mabel Marvin
         .Marvin Pierce m. Pauline Robinson
          .BARBARA PIERCE

Doesn't that mean BUSH's mother is his cousin? Always thought Bush was inbred.

In the 2004 US election you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush.

Some choice,... like the choice between the front side of a piece of paper, or the back side.

So the result of the election has already been decided before you get to "choose".

I would rather have the Iranian type of election.

And here's a couple of snaps of Bush's grandaddy,.. sure looks Jewish to me:

Prescott Sheldon Bush with Ike.
Prescott Sheldon Bush with Nixon.

Assorted shots of Bush with Rabbis:

Bush visiting the St. Petersburg synagogue on a rushed trip to Russia.
Another shot from the St. Petersburg synagogue visit.
Jeb Bush celebrates Chanukah with assorted Rabbis.
Bush's Mom posing with a local and Russian Rabbi.

Unless you really believe that the GOP will nominate an adulterer, both Giuliani and McCain are out of the running.

Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan?

"The Dems don't have anyone to match McCain."

Sure they do. Hillary.

Joel, if you think Hillary is a serious contender you're even more stupid than I thought.

The best evidence as to who will win in 2008 comes from the oddsmakers in Las Vegas,who distill the wisdom of crowds. At Tradesports, the chances of McCain's winning the nomination are 38 out of 100, and Clinton's 42. The odds of his winning the presidency are 23, of her winning, 20.

The odds of a Democrat winning are 50-50.

Bill Clinton doesn't have to be a fighter to believe that 2008 is a good enough year to run in, especially considering how much worse his wife's chances might be in 2012 or 2016.

Bill Clinton was one of the seven dwarves who ran in 1992 against the unbeatable George Bush senior?

In 1992 it was wide open because GHWB was so strong many well known candidates took a pass. This is the exact opposite situation. Everyone is running. Futher, Hillary trounces everyone in name recognition and fund raising.

Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh?

Huh?

Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh? Yes it is, no they're not, yes it is, Huh?

On the other hand, the Democrats are such craven idiots I think I'll vote Republican just to wake them up.

Looks like some cowardly troll has started posting using my name. Typical.

In 1992 it was wide open because GHWB was so strong many well known candidates took a pass.

But that's the point Ezra's making. She won't run because McCain is unbeatable. It's a ridiculous argument.

"Joel, if you think Hillary is a serious contender you're even more stupid than I thought."

Nope. Someone else using my name.

Nonsense. I've already explained that.

Maybe we should just stay home in '08. If the GOP wins again, so be it. I just can't stand the idea of a President Hillary or President Al.

Now he's trying to pretend I'm not the real me.

Are you a Catholic, Stefan?

So you don't think she's a serious candidate, Joel? Why?

Macho posturing is all they've got.

But it's more than we've got.

GOP,

I share your very, very low opinion of the Catholic Church. It's one of the few things we agree on. When cmdicely tries to defend it, he becomes a gibbering idiot.

It's hard to know what "gibbering idiot" means. It's hard...it's hard...I become hard every time cmdicely speaks.

I love him. Yes I do.

Gotta agree with you there, Stefan. If the Pope's not guilty of crimes against humanity, then no one is.

From above: In the 2004 US election you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush.

Some choice,... like the choice between the front side of a piece of paper, or the back side.

Think about it.

I keep waiting for Chris to notice my intellect, my strength, my steadfastness. Instead he just keeps thinking those little ineffectual slaps I take at him, like a small girl trying to get a boy's attention, are serious. They're not serious. I just don't know any other way to make him love me.

Why is everything such hell? Why is my life such a mess? WHY WON'T HE LOVE ME?

"It's hard to know what "gibbering idiot" means."

It means cmdicely turns into a moron.

"Turns into a moron." Yes, I understand. I turn into a quaking, aching, throbbing moron each time he says my name in that mellifluous way of his.

Oh. Wait. He never addresses me by name. Oh, why won't he love me?!

What the Democrats really need is someone with a backbone who'll stand up to the corporate interests. I'd like to see Ralph Nader run as the Democratic nominee. He's charismatic, articulate and electable. McCain wouldn't stand a chance against him.

(Adjusting pants.) Anyway. Do you people have anything to present other than loony naked slavering Bush hatred?

Advocate for God,

Ralph Nader is "charismatic?" What are you smoking?

I knew a charismatic and articulate man once. But he had nothing for me but contempt. He wouldn't even call me by name.

Anyway. Present your evidence that Bush is a Republican. Do you have anything more specific than your own misguided hatred?

I agree that Nader isn't a viable candidate. What about Ted Kennedy? Most people I know have a very high opinion of him. When I lived in Europe, everyone there liked him too. If not Kennedy, what about Carol Moseley Braun. She was a damn fine candidate before.

Kevin,

Hillary is an utter catastrophe for the Democratic Party-- here stands on Iraq, her bloodthirsty jingoism on Lebanon, hawkishness on Iran, corporatist ideology, flag-burning amendment idiocy, have alienated rank-and-file Democrats (most of them not Netroots and bloggers, for that matter). I've been a Democrat since Jimmy Carter was ruling the Oval Office, and I've never, ever seen a prominent fellow Democrat inspire the intraparty rage and disgust that Hillary Clinton has. I can't even keep count anymore, of the number of otherwise loyal Democrats I've met, who would vote for a Third Party candidate if Hillary were nominated. They would not vote for Hillary in 2008, under any circumstances whatsoever. Basically, we're looking a major fissure, a sort of internecine war among the Democrats if she were nominated or a big contender for the nomination.

I actually supported Hillary Clinton years ago, but like Joseph Lieberman, she's gotten far too close to the neocons and the other warmongers. She can't be our representative for 2008. Somebody like Mark Warner, Bill Richardson or even Russ Feingold would be much tougher, and win the support of the rank and file.

McCain is unbeatable in the GENERAL ELECTION if he can get on a national ticket, and he doesn't need far right conservative votes to take the Nov balloting. But the GOP will nominate him ONLY if they are really, really desperate. The GOP here in Arizona does not like him, because he is not a team player, and the national GOP feels the same way.

Hillary can probably get the Democratic nomination if she really wants it. But she is like an outbreak of small pox to Democratic electoral chances. I wager this story is a Bill Clinton plant to generate the party feedback necessary to convince Hillary not to run and to get her a powerful position in return.

As for McCain's foreign policy, he will attract as strong and rational a national defense and foreign policy team as George Bush 41 did. They served us well in that arena during Desert Storm. He's a hot head, but no fool. And we would be better off with him as President than anyone I can name today. It just won't happen.

The Democratic Party still doesn't get it. They're as incompetent at politics as the GOP is at governance, just not as dangerous. My predictions:

o 2006 -- Democrats fail to capitalize on GOP weakness, maybe gaining a near-split in both Houses, but not necessary achieving a majority in either.

o 2008 -- Democrats fail again to nominate a strong candidate who can compete effectively for independent votes. The GOP nominates another closet conservative like Bush 43 and tries to eek out a victory.

Advocate for God,

Ralph Nader has about as much chance of being elected president as Pat Robertson. Most people think of him as something between a crank and a madman. He's hopeless.

I like Bernie Sanders. Yes, he's an ardent socialist, but I think you'll find most Americans are too. They just don't know it yet.

Tallchief,

Hillary is an utter catastrophe for the Democratic Party-- here stands on Iraq, her bloodthirsty jingoism on Lebanon, hawkishness on Iran, corporatist ideology, flag-burning amendment idiocy, have alienated rank-and-file Democrats (most of them not Netroots and bloggers, for that matter).

I love Democrat circular firing squads. Keep tearing one another apart. You're saving us the trouble.

"Democratic circular firing squads," not "Democrat." Sorry about that. I wasn't raised in the US and you can see that English is often a problem for me. Been caned for my grammar errors more than once.

Pierre Asciutto,

I like Bernie Sanders. Yes, he's an ardent socialist, but I think you'll find most Americans are too. They just don't know it yet.

This is probably the single most absurd statement I have yet read in this thread, and that's a tough standard.

It's almost as good as Advocate for God's claim that the sanctions against Iraq didn't cause anyone to die. Not a single person. (UN estimate of sanction deaths: At least 500,000).

And I stand by that statement GOP. 12 years of sanctions against Iraq did not cause anyone to die. Not one individual. The UN "estimate" is a blatant lie.

So funny this thread is...slightly better than a middle-school food fight (or an episode of Laugh In)...but much more messier...

Tough question: who should America trust to have the better judgment and experience to determine how to best fight against terrorism (or, as Kevin so insightfully describes it -- making progress against Osama and his buddies): John McCain or Kevin Drum?

Stefan,

If not Kennedy, what about Carol Moseley Braun.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one.

This is probably the single most absurd statement I have yet read in this thread, and that's a tough standard.

Huh? You're questioning what I meant when I posted as Pierre? Didn't we talk about this in the unanswered e-mails we sent to Chris?

It's hard to know what Bush hating freaks like this crowd would say to avoid the unpleasant truth that if a terrorist might be able to tell you where a bomb was, you'd put away your irrational Bush anger and torture him yourselves. Therefore, you are forced to admit that we should torture everyone we even remotely suspect. According to this papal encyclical, this is also the church's view. Care to defend yourselves now?

Pierre Asciutto,

"I like Bernie Sanders. Yes, he's an ardent socialist, but I think you'll find most Americans are too. They just don't know it yet."

Bernie Sanders? Pleeeze! I beg you, don't ever try to involve yourself in real politics. You'd be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Leave it to people who at least have half a clue what they're talking about.

"Tough question: who should America trust to have the better judgment and experience to determine how to best fight against terrorism...: John McCain or Kevin Drum?"

That's a rather silly question seeing as how Kevin Drum will never run for the presidency...if you dislike Drum so much, why do you post here? Shits and giggles?

"Mike" is PaulB?

Advocate for God, if you really, I mean really, think the Iraq sanctions didn't kill anyone, you're too stupid to take seriously about anything.

So Kevin Drum will never be a presidential candidate, eh? And you know this how, exactly? A hunch? A magic eight ball? Goat entrails?

Nonsense. Try and post something substantive, Thomas, instead of drowning in your own vat of anti-Bush juice.

Perhaps you missed the quotes and my link to REAL-WORLD New Hampshire political operatives re: Hillary above?

Interested party,

I don't dislike Drum. I think he is a smart, honest fellow who runs a good blog. However, he is repeatedly very weak, and sometimes strikingly naive, on Iraq, the war on terro and military issues.

I post here because Drum is often good and there are sometimes respectful, informative and interesting discussions on the thread.

I put Drum in my question because this blog feeds off his ideas. You can substitute any leading democrat, Clinton, Feingold, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, etc. and ask the same question.

On whether Hillary runs, she and Bill will consider only one question. Is 2008 her best shot at becoming president (even if it is a small probability)- if their answer is yes, she runs. I think the answer is yes.

Of course she's running, brian. Too many unknown variables for her to wait.

Thomas, your seething ire directed at all things Bush makes it impossible to take you seriously. 98.7 percent of what you post is simply rants against the administration. Why should we bother to read the rest?

Reading these comments, I despair for the future of the Democratic Party. The idea that Ralph Nader, Carol Moseley Braun, or Ted Kennedy could even win the primaries, let alone the presidency, is so ridiculous, you people don't have a friggin' clue. WAKE UP!

"On whether Hillary runs, she and Bill will consider only one question. Is 2008 her best shot at becoming president (even if it is a small probability)- if their answer is yes, she runs. I think the answer is yes."

If Hillary runs, she'll fall flat on her face. And deserve to.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist about 2008, but I think the Democrats don't have too much to worry about. Assuming McCain wins the GOP nomination (I share doubts with many others), he certainly has an erratic side that people just don't like seeing in a leader. A good opponent could turn him into a foaming at the mouth crazy person by the end of the campaign.

But lets say he wins. he probably has the intellectual and ideological capacities to adjust to the realities of Iraq that are missing from this prez. I don't care how much uber-hawk McCain is spouting now, he'll learn to adapt.

Hillary could probably beat just about any Bush clone (like George Allen), of which the Republican Party is fully stocked. Thankfully I think the backlash against her is growing, since the GOP may not make themselves that easy a target. Hopefully we'll end up with some combo of Warner/Obama/Edwards. The Dems are more likely to think practically in the primaries than their counterparts.

So I'd take Democratic odds against Republicans in '08. Assuming the GOP is still around by then and hasn't split into HezbuJesus and the Non-Spanish-Speaking-Taxpayers Party.

The Clintons are the worst thing that has happened to the Democratic Party since the South started defecting to the GOP. They have entrenched the power of the New Democrat/DLC ideology, and true progressives are now almost totally shut out of any real positions of influence. Clinton is effectively a moderate Republican who uses Democratic words, that is all. It's depressing. I think progressives must resign themselves to being shut out for a generation or more.

I'm sure it's been said far above, but this doesn't sound like Bill Clinton and it doesn't sound like Harry Reid, either. People who achieve a powerful office don't just volunteer to give it up to anyone. Unless they have something else lined up, and that's hardly likely at this distant point.

But it does sound like the surface of some disinformation campaign.

I second Osama_Been_Forgotten's motion as well.

Check this out, it is a Political Animal,

http://fantastic.library.cornell.edu/imagerecord_xl.php?record=121

Thomas,

I think you are correct that the Clinton's will consider the variables of waiting an unacceptable risk, but they still need to reach the conclusion -- taking into account everthing -- that 2008 is her best shot. They could conclude that, even with the variables of waiting, her probability of winning in 2008 is so low that a later run is her best shot.

One problem is that they likely need to make their decision in early or mid 2007. Although one clever approach would be to announce no run, and then see if the opportunity is there for a late entry into the race. An announcement of no run in early 2007 does not necessarily foreclose her from "changing her mind" and making a late run in 2008. In their mind, they would keep open the possibility of 08 even after announcing no run, so they can better size up their prospects. Hillary might have the power to win the nomination even with a late announcement and even a loss after a late announcment would not preclude a run in 2012 or later (e.g., McGovern, Reagan, possibly others).

The Clintons are the worst thing that has happened to the Democratic Party since the South started defecting to the GOP.

Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, campaigned for and signed Welfare Reform, ending a major, 40-year-old federal social welfare program, and presided over one of the largest increases in economic inequality in history. What's not to love for Democrats?

Hopefully, if the next president is Mark Warner, he'll continue in the Clinton tradition.

OBF is pretty accurate and good with words in describing Clinton as "effectively a moderate Republican who uses Democratic words." One exception is that he succeeded in putting two very liberal justices on the supreme court and liberals on lower courts as well.

But didn't Clinton or any other democrat need to adopt that persona in order to be elected in 92 and possibly even 96?

brian:

"Changing her mind, for the good of the country" of course ; )

One exception is that he succeeded in putting two very liberal justices on the supreme court and liberals on lower courts as well.

It's a sign of just how far to the right the court has moved that you consider justices like Ginsburg and Breyer to be "very liberal." In previous generations they'd have been considered centrists.

But didn't Clinton or any other democrat need to adopt that persona in order to be elected in 92 and possibly even 96?

You mean a fake Democrat persona, while being a moderate Republican in all but name? Yes.

If this nation wishes another 8 years of Republican rule, then yes, by all means it must launch Ms. Clinton into Democratic candidacy.

Wow ... what an unbelievable thread.

Check the email addies. It's a Doppelganger fest.

GOP, Advocate for God, Stefan, Joel and possibly even trex (at the point he joined in, I was skimming to get to the bottom so I can't be sure) are all being spoofed at once.

Wouldn't it just be bizarre as fuck if it were all by the same person? The parodist/impersonator is not very skilled; the rhetorical quirks of each regular surely don't shine in high relief ...

Just too fucking weird for words. Kevin -- yet another good argument for blog registration.

Bob

Oh and Pierre, too -- by GOP's own admission.

Talk about completely trashing a thread ...

Bob

"GOP, Advocate for God, Stefan, Joel and possibly even trex are all being spoofed at once.

Wouldn't it just be bizarre as fuck if it were all by the same person?,............. "

.............. and he/they was a friend of Bobs.

What wouldn't Bob do to get blog registration.

I bet he would even sell his grandmother, to get it.

rwc says:

"Hillary can probably get the Democratic nomination if she really wants it. But she is like an outbreak of small pox to Democratic electoral chances. I wager this story is a Bill Clinton plant to generate the party feedback necessary to convince Hillary not to run and to get her a powerful position in return."

Absolutely! This needs to be repeated ad infinitum

"Oh and Pierre, too -- by GOP's own admission"

Fake GOP or real GOP?

Pale Rider:

Hehe, welcome back :)

I'd instantly suspect your rather impish self, if all the spoofage wasn't dedicated to the singular proposition of making the regulars here look like twits.

Except maybe I'll consider crediting you with the fake GOP. Something about the gay sexual wannabee imagery that you've had fun mocking before :)

Bob

jj = Jewy Jew

"GOP, Advocate for God, Stefan, Joel and possibly even trex are all being spoofed at once.

Wouldn't it just be bizarre as fuck if it were all by the same person?,............. "

.............. and he (actually they) was a friend of Bobs.

What wouldn't the Jew Bob do to get blog registration.

I bet he would even sell his grandmother, to get it.

Bob,
I'm nothing if not an equal opportunity mocker. Just how big a hardon do you have for cmdicely, anyway?

"Pierre":

Whoever this is, I don't think it's particularly good form to spoof somebody when they're not in the forum to immediately read it.

It's not particularly funny, either. More like, well ... really really sad.

Bob

I take that back.

Pale Rider isn't in the forum atm, either.

The dude's monstrouly snarky -- but he's never been an asshole, either.

Bob

Must have hit a nerve.

Must have discovered another fake.

Bob

Pale Rider has an old solider's sense of loyalty. I've gone around with him before when I first got here -- and he apologized to me for taking it too far.

Just not the type of dude to pop up here after months of absence and start gratuitously insulting people he considers political allies.

The cmdicely snark didn't "touch a nerve." It revealed a trait and solved a riddle :)

Bob

I suspect the spoofer is.....watcher. No just kidding. McCain unbeatable? dream on repubs. Hillary electable? I suspect not. Best candidate for the dems? I say Gore.

I don't have anything to say on the subject, but I couldn't resist posting something in a comments thread that's garnered this much heat and attention. So here it is: When the 2008 election has come and gone, and when looking back at this particular discussion, we will only shake our heads and mumble incoherencies about naivete and cluelessness. It is utterly ridiculous to make predictions at this point. And even more ridiculous to take them seriously from others. Particularly from young young Ezra Klein. My oldest sons' a freakin' genius, but I would never take anything he might say on a subject such as reading political tea leaves that requires decades of carefully cultivated wisdom and insight to begin to make predictions with an ounce of sobriety. Sorry 'bout that, son.
--
HRlaughed

American Idiot:

I'm with you there.

But he's got to have it in the belly ...

Bob

Really bob, being gay is nothing to be ashamed of.

"Pierre":

Neither is being Italian :)

I'm amazed the spoofer spelled your last name correctly.

Bob

bob- i suspect the belly will heat up and the rest of the world comes back to reality.

American Idiot:

I don't know. The long profiles I've read about Gore since the movie came out don't give me all that much faith.

There's a part of him that really despises politics -- and a part of him that became a politician out of being a dutiful son.

He's a good, honorable man. And -- sadly enough -- that may exactly be the problem, hat-tossing-into-the-ringwise ...

I think he's much happier raising awareness on global warming and running his green investment consultancy.

Bob

Your probably right :( but that is a noble and honorable calling he undertakes. I find feingold intriguing but know to little about him to project him as a viable candidate so I still cross fingers for Al.

Hillary for President is kind of the worst of both worlds. I've yet to speak with a Democrat who really wants her to run and all the Republicans I speak with practically drool at the mention of her name. I don't think it is trying to enforce a negative in anticipation of 2008 to say now that her negatives are exceptionally high and any race for the White House would be an almost impossible battle in the general election, I think it is the truth. Which isn't to say McCain is a runaway train to win either. All things being equal, come November of 2008 I have serious doubts that the two major party candidates will be named either Clinton or McCain. Hillary as majority or minority leader? Sure. Why not?
Besides forget about 2008, let's see if the American public realizes how badly & how corruptly the Republicans are running Congress with elections in November of this year. Mixed government is a good thing and that is something I hear from both Democrats & Republicans I speak with.

Gore isnt going to run, or he wouldn't have let himself get fat like he has. He's considered too much of an extremist on the environment too, and he knows once he became a candidate he'd be attacked about it and he couldnt speak as freely as he does now. He wont run, I'm pretty positive of that.

I think the democrats only hope is that McCain loses in the primaries, becuase I agree with those that think he's unbeatable by any democrat. And then the democrats nominate one of the centrists that are running: Warner, Bayh, Richardson,.... Somebody other than Hillary, and not Edwards, who's too much of a lightwieght imo.

Its all up to the republicans though. Nominate McCain and they win. Their other option is Giuliani who would be tough to beat too. Anyone other than McCain though and the Dems have a very good chance to win, with one of their centrist candidates.

"Folks in the know tell me that Bill [Clinton] is actually the least enthused about her candidacy, as he believes McCain will be the 2008 nominee and no Democrat can defeat him."

I thought the Dem are finally accepting the fact that those 'folks in the know', the braindamaged beltway pundits, in reality don't know even the waether outside, not to speak of the mood of the vroad public. Those are the folks who gave us the Gore and Kerry campaigns and who were too afraid to question Bush's case for a war against Iraq. Forget those folks, I hope they will be exposed as the know-nothings that they when the results of this year's elecetions show that they didn't get it.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I think she will lose. The Dems, once again, will have self-destructed.

Can't the Dems get together a decent candidate? Doesn't seem to be anyone on the horizon.

Can't BILL Clinton run again?

Russ Feingold really speaks very well, smart guy, but there are a lot of folks who simply won't vote for a Jewish guy (Mel Gibson among them)..

OT, but an example of the cluelessness of some liberal pundits:
Via Digby, I found this story
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11794
by some Mike Tomasky at the progress. Quote:

"You start with their National Journal numbers -- specifically, their liberal support score for 2005. This score is defined in this way: If Senator X has a liberal support score of 90, it means she is more liberal than 90 percent of her Senate colleagues.

I use 90 in the above hypothetical for a reason: Just as a 90 got you an A in college, it seems to me that a 90 makes you a real, dyed-in-the-wool lib. So, off the top of your head: How many of the 44 Democratic senators have a 90 or better? Nine? Ten?

Try four: Ted Kennedy (96.7), Jack Reed (95.2), Barbara Boxer (94.3), and Paul Sarbanes (91)."

Hello? A score of 90 says that the Senator is more liberal than 90% of his colleagues, so he is in a group of just 10%. But 10% of 44 Senators are 4.4. So there can't be more than 4 Senators with a score of 90, that's mathematically impossible. This isn't a political question. Should we listen to such 'folks in the know' who don't even know the basics of what they are talking about???

And McCain still has to deal with the dislike of many Republicans, who find him a horse's ass.

I don't even know the difference between an adjective and a noun, so why does anyone take me seriously on anything more substantial?

I'm an idiot.

Just as an aside, it has been brought to my attention that there have been imitators of the 'Pale Rider' handle that have cropped up here and there on this blog.

Children, the Pale Rider is dead. He is no more. He is an honest soul, moved on to better things and a better form of communication. He has left one form and become another, rendering the shit storm unto the unwashed wingnuts and sending them screaming for the bosom of their dry mothers. He fought, he stood for things, he used monstrous techniques to trick the evil out of them, and then it became necessary to leave and re-emerge as something different.

He was here and now he is gone. Do not lament him, do not pine for the way he did things. It served well in the time he was here. It was a moment that has passed.

And there ends the thing...only a rube like rmck1 would misunderstand how brilliant it was for him to leave them all behind...

Jonesy--

Do pray tell, why is McCain unbeatable? He is actually not nearly as popular as the press would have you believe. The press built him up in 2000 and he failed to even seriously threaten a obvious moron like Bush in the primaries.

The fact is that people like these kind of so-called "mavericks" as Senators, but that does not neccesarily translate into liking them as a President.

McCain is a conservative Republican. Even if he makes it out of the primary, any competent Democratic opponent who does not have Liberman-esque baggage will dismantle his "maverick" stance by pointing to his kneejerk support of Bush on Iraq. You've only seen him "debate" press figures who fawn over him. If Bush dismantled him in a serious debate, anyone can.

Giuliani would be a much more fearsome opponent. He actually is much more of a "maverick" than McCain. And it seems likely he would have NY State in the bag. Of course, he is also less likely to make it out of the primary.

Best candidate for the dems? I say Gore.

Gore it a putz. He's not capable of telling the truth nor even decent lies. His movie was pathetic. It was great for squeezing $20M from the liberal whacko's but it's a good a target as MM's movie on 9/11 for conservatives. The man is not capable of telling a story without silly exaggerations.

Dems better get this right. In 2010 there's a census and you'll probably lose another 7 electoral votes to red states.

If Hillary drops out any conservative will be able to beat Gore. You'll be locked out for another 8 years. Think about it. The newspapers and networks will lose another 35% of the viewership and the unions another 35% of their membership. The old anti-vietnam war libs and socialists are all dying off.

This might be liberalisms last shot.

Come on, this can't be true. Bill Clinton was advised by those in the know not run for president in 1992 because H.W. was allegedly unbeatable, with approval ratings in the 80%'s in early 1991 (a time when serious Democratic candidates had to through their hats in the ring). Bill wisely dismissed that advice and we all know how the 1992 election turned out. In addition, Saint John is no shoe-in for the nomination and his recent flip-flops on several issues and new-found coziness with all things W definitely indicate that there are serious chinks in his armor.

I'm appalled at the petty prick-pumping of the libs on this board. For those who advocate tolerance and love for baby-murderers and terrorists, resorting to posing as someone else to mock him seems a little out of line.

GOP is right--you have nothing to offer but deranged Bush-frustration, and eventually it will cause your party to implode.

"Petty prick-pumping." What lovely alliteration!

But which GOP is right?

GOP, you disappoint me. Your trolls really can't touch the comic genius of the more experienced on these boards.

I dig the alliteration, Llatallortaton.

Bill Clinton was advised by those in the know not run for president in 1992 because H.W. was allegedly unbeatable, with approval ratings in the 80%'s in early 1991

That's not true. Bill Clinton was advised to run for two reasons. 1st was he had zero name recognition and he needed to mount a national campaign to introduce himself across America. 2nd, the fact GHWB was so strong meant better known candidates wold be more likely to drop out creating a lot more space than odinarily would be available for soomeone so unknown.

When Bill started in 1990 his mind wasn't on 1992. It was on 1996.

the demented Bush-bootlicking brownshirt rdw wrote: Gore it a putz. He's not capable of telling the truth nor even decent lies. His movie was pathetic ... The man is not capable of telling a story without silly exaggerations.

You are not capable of doing anything except slavishly regurgitating scripted, programmed right-wing bullshit and spewing ugly lies.

You haven't seen Gore's movie. What you think about it is what you've been told to think by the Republican gangsters and thugs that you worship. Like everything else you have to say, your opinion that Gore's movie is "pathetic" has been spoon-fed to you by the Republican propaganda machine, and you robotically repeat it. You are an ignorant, weak-minded dupe who is incapable of independent thought and who lives in a delusional, one-dimensional cartoon comic book "dungeons & dragons" world that has no relationship to reality at all. You spend all your online time cheerleading for anti-American corporate criminals and rejoicing in the success of their crimes.

Al Gore is a brilliant man and a great American, with a long career of principled and devoted public service to the American people. George W. Bush is a low-grade moron and a vicious thug, with a long career of corporate crime and living off his daddy's rich friends, who stole the 2000 election for him so he could rise to the level of being Dick Cheney's sock puppet. Bush's theft of the 2000 election is one of the greatest crimes ever committed against America and one of the greatest tragedies ever to befall this country.

Keep on licking Bush's boots. You are not worthy to lick Al Gore's boots.

Al Gore is a brilliant man and a great American, with a long career of principled and devoted public service to the American people.

Gore is a dope. Only in the Democratic party could such a putz be considered an intellectual. His marks in college were lower than GWBs and Kerry's and he was unable to pass anything at the graduate level.

I didn't see Gore's movie nor did I see Michael Moore's nor did I see George Clooney's. They were not designed for me to see. They were designed to separate fools from their money. None were even remotely successful as political propaganda. MM enabled GWB to win re-election easily and ended Tom Daschels political career. Clooney's was a miserable attempt to elevate the networks and remind people of McCarthy and was seen be less than 4M people or less than 4% of voters. Gore admitted to over-representing the facts BEFORE the movie was shown but that didn't matter anyway. He's only getting the same 4M twits chasing Clooney.

They're all has-beens chasing an old dream. The post-68 libs are now getting long in the tooth and are not very influencial. Vietnam is a memory only for those 55 and older. It's a shrinking population that can only grow smaller faster along with the power of the MSM.

Gore is dumb. There's not enough lipstick in the Universe to cover that pig. He's even thrown his VP under the bus.

Giuliani would be a much more fearsome opponent. He actually is much more of a "maverick" than McCain. And it seems likely he would have NY State in the bag. Of course, he is also less likely to make it out of the primary.

YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

Unfortunately the end of his marriage was such a disaster he has a very limited chance of winning a GOP primary. His social liberalism is a big enough problem but openly dating another women while your kids were living with your wife while getting a divorce is a disaster.

If he did get out of the primaries he'd win easily because of NY's votes. Even if he didn;t carry the state he'd force the Democratic candidate to campaign there.

The demented, ignorant Bush-bootlicking brownshirt rdw wrote: I didn't see Gore's movie

Of course you didn't see it. You are too busy glued to Fox News, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, where they tell you what to think about it, just as they tell you what to think about everything. You say that Gore's move is "pathetic" because that's the word that you've been told to use by your masters.

As I said, you demonstrate with every one of our comments that you are incapable of independent thought. All you are capable of -- and all you ever do on these pages -- is robotically parroting what the corporate-sponsored right-wing Republican propaganda machine tells you to think and say. You are a weak-minded, ignorant, easily manipulated dupe.

Gore admitted to over-representing the facts BEFORE the movie was shown

That's a lie. Gore has "admitted" no such thing. All -- not the overwhelming majority, but all -- legitimate climate scientists who have commented on An Inconvenient Truth agree that it is accurate and that there is no "exaggeration" in it at all.

But that's just one of many lies that Rush Limbaugh Inc. tells you, and you mechanically repeat. Just like everything else you have to say. Just like everything that passes for "thought" in what passes for your "brain".

Your whole mental fantasy world is constructed on a foundation of lies that are programmed into you by people to whom you are a miserable worm, that they would just as soon squash under their boots as spit on. Those are the people that you worship, like the mental slave that you are.

You are really a pathetic excuse for a human being.

I am not dead.

Ignore the imposter.

That's a lie. Gore has "admitted" no such thing. All -- not the overwhelming majority, but all -- legitimate climate scientists who have commented on An Inconvenient Truth agree that it is accurate and that there is no "exaggeration" in it at all.

Yes he did and the film is a joke. It's to the liberals advantage no one saw it. It's also to their advantage global warming is not a top 12 political issue and never has been. We're only seeing a small bit more of it now because conservatives want to advance nuclear power and there's no risk of it being used for amything else.

Kyoto is a total disaster. Liberals, a shrinking species to begin with, will never be trusted to manage the environment.

If I remember correctly Gore has topped out at near $20M in gate but is now all but out of theaters. That's about 2M viewers. They're all libs already saturated in the kool-aid. Even assuming all voted in 2004, and it's highly unlikey more than 60% did, Al still hasn't reached 2% of the voting public.

Moreover it isn't like this attracted a younger crowd. Why would anyone under 40 go to watch Al Gore do a slide show? Besides being an old crowd it's all dorks.

BTW: the GW 'discussion' has seriously and permanenty damaged 'science'. The twits in it for the money have ignored too many important facts because they provide counter evidence and/or they give far too much weight to evidence which is at best suspect and often means the opposite of what they suggest.

The result is they're comically easy to mock and that's what they're getting. It was interesting watching these fools predict a heavy and nasty hurricane season this year because of GW. Now they're running away from their predictions. Here's where videotape really sucks.

Kyoto is a piece of garbage and conservatives are going to wrap that piece of garbage around liberal necks for the next two decades. With brief timeouts to construct nuclear power plants.

Facing defeat and remembering the thumping they receive in November 2006, Republican primary voters will swallow their dislike for McCain and nominate him for the presidency.

By being a relative outsider to the Bush Administration, and with the Democrats in control of either the House or the Senate (or both), McCain will be very difficult for any potential Democrat candidate to defeat.

Now, having written that, I do not believe the comments or beliefs attributed to Bill Clinton in this matter. He has never appeared to me to be someone who thinks the impossible is actually so- if he did, he would not have even run in 1992.

Yancey,

1992 was perfect for Bill Clinton because he had nothing to lose. He needed a national campaign to develop name recognition. Losing to GHWB would not have been an embarrassment. Not even close. Unless of course he ran a really bad campaign. Bill ran in 1992 knowing the most likely scenario was a leg-up for 1996 when GHWB had to retire.

rdw,

That is a perfectly valid interpretation, I suppose, especially since he was, at the time, a very young politician who would still have had a future after losing in a "no-win situation". Still, I think he ran believing he could win, when almost no one else gave him a snowball's chance in Hell.

The demented Bush-bootlicking brownshirt rdw wrote: Yes he did ...

No, he did not. That's a lie that your masters have told you to repeat, so, being the mental slave that you are, you slavishly repeat it.

rdw wrote: ... and the film is a joke.

You haven't seen the film. That's the opinion of the film that your masters have told you to have, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's the opinion that you slavishly have.

On the other hand, the universal opinion of climate scientists who have seen the film is that it is scientifically accurate and that it very effectively and compellingly presents the accurate scientific truth about global warming.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal where you go for your steady diet of corporate-sponsored, scripted, programmed, right-wing bullshit about global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, and everything else.

rdw wrote: Moreover it isn't like this attracted a younger crowd [...] Besides being an old crowd it's all dorks.

You have no idea what kind of "crowd" goes to see An Inconvenient Truth, because you haven't been to a theater where is is showing. But that's the opinion that your masters have told you to have about who goes to see the film, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's the opinion that you slavishly have.

rdw wrote: Kyoto is a total disaster.

You know absolutely nothing about Kyoto. You are completely ignorant on the subject, as you have repeatedly, and at great length, demonstrated. But that's the opinion of Kyoto that your masters have told you to have, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's the opinion that you slavishly have.

rdw wrote: The twits in it for the money have ignored too many important facts because they provide counter evidence and/or they give far too much weight to evidence which is at best suspect and often means the opposite of what they suggest.

Your characterization of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the entire world as "twits in it for the money" is obscene coming from a weak-minded know-nothing dupe like yourself. The rest of that paragraph is meaningless gibberish, like a lot of what you post. You know nothing about the science of climate change, but that's what you've been told by your masters to think about it, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's what you slavishly think about it.

You know nothing, you have no ability for independent thought, and you are only capable of slavishly and obediently thinking the thoughts and having the opinions that you are told to have by the corporate-sponsored right-wing Republican propaganda machine. Then you come here and slavishly, obediently regurgitate those scripted, programmed thoughts and opinions like the obedient mental slave that you are.

You are really a dumbass tool.

Yancey,

I agree he ran thinking he could win but at the time he conmitted the decision was a strategic decision to set the table for 1996. He knew his only chance required he pull the equivalent of an inside straight part of which required a 3rd party candidate and part of which required GHWB to falter. Bill knew as well as anyone his chances were not good but also that much could happen in his favor to improve them.

He was extremely fortunate in Ross Perot, the end of the cold war and that he was pre-Fox and pre-blog and before talk radio fully formed. I think his problems would have been amplified a great deal more.

By being a relative outsider to the Bush Administration, and with the Democrats in control of either the House or the Senate (or both), McCain will be very difficult for any potential Democrat candidate to defeat.

Obviously you are expecting big things for the democrats come November. Don't get your hopes too high. GWBs polls are down but his fund raising prowess is not. Aside from Santorum all of the GOP incumbants are in decent to good shape and several seats defended by Democrats are up for grabs including NJ and Minn and the situation in MD is developing for Steele. Actually Conn is looking less sure for the Democrats as well with leiberman and lamond splitting the majority and losing.

The GOP will keep the Senate. It also appears they will keep the house. Several of the seats the Dems think they have, Gerlach and Weldon in PA to name two, are fairly safe for the GOP. There are more GOP seats at risk but the Dems will need a large turnout to carry the day and right now the GOP machine is much better funded and staffed.

Democrats were just as optimistic in 2002 and they actually lost ground in boh houses. This time there is open warfare between Dean, Emanuel and Schumer. Bush is not on the ballot.

You know absolutely nothing about Kyoto

I know the libs in Canada are screwed. Harper has no choice to pull out but can wait to maximize the humiliation to the opposition for agreeing to this piece of garbage. Thanks to USA exports from the Tar Sands Canada will be BY FAR the worst pollutor under Kyoto. Under terms of the deal they get to pay massive fines to Russia, a much worse pollutor.

This is an absolutely braindead treaty. The Canadians were absolutel fools to even think about agreeing to it.

What's cool is the next round of negotiations has started and the braindead libs who created this monstronsity of stupidity really expect China, India and other 3rd world nations will actually agree to real limits. They'll laugh at you just as they did the last time.

The USA, who did not sign kyoto, is improving their air quality at a fast rate than 90% of the signees. The deal was/is braindead stupid.

Just like Al Gore.

rdw,

It isn't a case of my hoping the Democrats win in November, only that it appears to me that they likely will. I will most likely vote for Nancy Johnson (a Republican for those who are unfamiliar with Connecticut politics) this fall in my district race and vote for Joe Lieberman as a poke-in-the-eye to the lunatics of the left since the Republican nominee has absolutely no chance in the race.

The demented Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw spews more idiotic, scripted, programmed right-wing drivel about Kyoto.

What you say about Canada and Alberta is 100% wrong. It's just more fake, phony, right-wing bullshit propaganda that your masters tell you to repeat, so, being the mental slave that you are, you slavishly repeat it.

The Republican governor of the most populous state in the USA has just in effect signed on to Kyoto, and California will now be participating directly in the EU's implementation of Kyoto-based carbon emission permit trading.

At least a dozen other states have implemented plans to reduce CO2 emissions that are in line with the requirements of Kyoto.

As of July, the Mayors of 275 US cities, representing over 40 million US citizens, have agreed to reduce CO2 emissions in accord with the requirements of Kyoto.

Numerous major US corporations have asked that the Federal government implement the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol since failure to do so harms US competitiveness in a world where the Kyoto Protocol is law.

You are completely full of shit regarding Kyoto.

Your demented right-wing triumphalism is the pathetic product of a sick mind that has lost all contact with reality.

You are a weak-minded, ignorant fool who is only capable of slavishly parroting the lies that are fed to you by your right-wing masters. You live in a delusional fantasy world created by the right-wing media machine, and you have no clue what is happening in the real world.

SecularAnimist,

Lay off of the amphetamines. They will be your ruin.

Yancey Ward wrote: I will most likely vote for Nancy Johnson (a Republican for those who are unfamiliar with Connecticut politics) this fall in my district race and vote for Joe Lieberman as a poke-in-the-eye to the lunatics of the left since the Republican nominee has absolutely no chance in the race.

There is nothing whatever "lunatic", nor even particularly "left", about Lamont.

Of course McCain is unbeatable. Just think how many ballots he can smuggle within his freakish jowls.

Yancey Ward: Lay off of the amphetamines. They will be your ruin.

I'm drug-free.

rdw is the one addled by mind-altering substances: namely, Fox News, which is designed to inflict irreversible brain damage on its viewers. He's a sad example of the result. There are people in mental hospitals receiving daily medication for schizophrenia who have a better grip on reality than rdw does.

SecularAnimist,

I did not write that Lamont is a lunatic.

rdw: The GOP will keep the Senate. It also appears they will keep the house.

From Charlie Cook's forthcoming National Journal column:

"Time is running out for Republicans. Unless something dramatic happens before Election Day, Democrats will take control of the House. And the chances that they’ll seize the Senate are rising toward 50-50.

"The electoral hurricane bearing down on the GOP looks likely to be a Category 4 or 5, strong enough to destroy at least one of the party’s majorities. The political climate feels much as it did before previous elections that produced sizable upheavals, such as in 1994, when Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats, and control of both chambers."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/04/the_gathering_storm.html

rdw.....clap harder

SA,

Kyoto is a total disaster and I am dead on regarding Canada being the worst polluter BY FAR!

It's nice the mayors have made agreements they can't possibly enforce and it's terrific Arnold has made a deal with Blair which is NOT in effect Kyoto, nor is it close. But if arnold wishes to chase business from CA the folks in PA will be happy to get it. It's even better if Philly won't be an option. The unemployment rate in my county is

It's also great that corporations want to pollute less. I didn't know someone was stopping them. I'm a boy scout. I think it's only common sense to leave the place as clean as possible and at a minimum cleaner that we found it. This is why America is the greatest place on earth. We are doing more to clean the planet than anyone else.

If you were remotely familiar with PA and South jersey you would know the Delaware water basin is the cleanest it's been in over 150 years and getting cleaner all the time. Further, you would know the waters off south jersey, both ocean and Delaware Baym are also dramatically cleaner. The same also holds true for the forests of both states which are very well mamaged, growing larger and healthier each year.

America works my friend! I know that drives liberals crazy but thems the facts. America works dramatically better than the UN, EU or anyone else. Our air, water and land is getting progressively cleaner each year and will continue to do so. This will be especially true when we start to replace our coal plants with nuclear plants.

The demented Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw wrote: Kyoto is a total disaster and I am dead on regarding Canada being the worst polluter BY FAR!

You can continue your idiotic content-free screeching about the "disaster" of Kyoto as long as you want, if it satisfies your compulsion to slavishly obey your Fox News programming, but it's nonetheless garbage.

And with regard to GHG emissions, which Kyoto addresses, the USA is the worst polluter by far. Canada is not even close.

Under Kyoto, the USA would have committed to reducing its GHG emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. Instead, because the federal government is in the death-grip of the fossil fuel industry and its servants, Dick Cheney and George Bush, US emissions have increased 15% above 1990 levels. This is a crime against humanity.

rdw wrote: If you were remotely familiar with PA and South jersey you would know the Delaware water basin is the cleanest it's been in over 150 years and getting cleaner all the time.

And if you were remotely familiar with the Delaware river basin you would know that that's a direct result of four decades of government intervention ... I know that drives scripted, programmed, right-wing ideologues crazy, but them's the facts:

A breakthrough in water resources management occurred in 1961 when President Kennedy and the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York for the first time signed concurrent compact legislation into law creating a regional body with the force of law to oversee a unified approach to managing a river system without regard to political boundaries.

The members of this regional body - the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) - include the four basin state governors and a federal representative appointed by the President of the United States.

When the DRBC was created, some 43 state agencies, 14 interstate agencies, and 19 federal agencies exercised a multiplicity of splintered powers and duties within the watershed, which stretches 330 miles from the Delaware River's headwaters near Hancock, N. Y., to the mouth of the Delaware Bay.

The Compact's signing marked the first time since the nation's birth that the federal government and a group of states joined together as equal partners in a river basin planning, development and regulatory agency.

If we had an intelligent, competent president who actually cared about the well-being of America -- like John F. Kennedy, or Al Gore -- to lead the federal government into a similar partnership with the states to address global warming, then the USA would be the world's leader on this issue and the problem would be solved.

But instead we have career corporate criminal as both president and vice-president, and they only care about enriching their cronies and financial backers in the fossil fuel industry, so the US is betraying not only its own citizens but the future of the entire planet.

While you and other weak-minded, ignorant mental slaves of right-wing propaganda cheer them on, spouting the lies and gibberish that is spoon-fed to you by your masters.

With regards to Canada, rdw is mostly correct. Canada is already the most energy intensive country on the planet, and second only to the United States on carbon emitted per capita. With the increase in the tar sands recovery efforts, which are extremely energy intensive, Canada will likely pass the United States in carbon emitted per capita, and there is no chance that Canada can actually reduce CO2 emissions to the levels in Kyoto. This means that they are obligated to buy credits from countries that have them to sell. Like rdw, I expect these mechanisms to be abandoned since it will be a political impossibility for the Canadians to actually buy the credits.

At best, Kyoto can be said to have laid out a framework for international cooperation on global warming, but, to date, has had little real impact. It may be that the framework can be extended and improved in the future, but expect CO2 concentration to continue to increase well into this century, and likely into the next.

McCain will NOT be the 2008 Republican nominee... They'll "Manchurian Candidate" the hell out of him again...

I'd be happy to fellate the president or Mr. McCain, if they'd let me. It's the least I could do as a patriotic Republican.

Yancey Ward: With the increase in the tar sands recovery efforts, which are extremely energy intensive, Canada will likely pass the United States in carbon emitted per capita ...

The exploitation of the tar sands of Alberta, and the catastrophic pollution that it causes, is driven by US oil consumption, not Canadian consumption:

Canada Pays Environmentally for US Oil Thirst
By Doug Struck
The Washington Post
31 May 2006

Excerpt (emphasis added):

Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming.

The digging - into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined - has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve.

The hideously polluting extraction of oil from the tar sands of Alberta is for export. Canadians are paying the price for US refusal to reduce oil consumption. The GHG emissions associated with the mining of tar sands are a direct result of US energy policy, not Canadian energy policy; and of course, the GHG emissions from burning the tar sand oil in the US are US emissions, not Canadian emissions.

Yancey Ward: At best, Kyoto can be said to have laid out a framework for international cooperation on global warming, but, to date, has had little real impact. It may be that the framework can be extended and improved in the future ...

Of course Kyoto has "to date" had little real impact in actually reducing emissions. The leading emitter of GHGs, the USA, has not only rejected Kyoto but has sought in every way to undermine and destroy it.

The Kyoto Protocol established the principle not only of "international cooperation", but of legally binding mandatory reductions in GHG emissions. That is absolutely essential. Even without the participation of the USA and Australia, and even though it has only been legally binding for a year and a half (since February 2005, 90 days after it was ratified by Russia), Kyoto is indeed already serving its purpose as the instrument for organizing a global response to the global warming emergency.

Kyoto does not go far enough. No one claims that it does, least of all me. It most certainly does need to be "extended and improved in the future" -- we need to drastically reduce GHG emissions much more and much faster than is called for by Kyoto.

But idiots like rdw argue that since Kyoto doesn't go far enough, it is better to do nothing -- or to go with fake, phony bullshit publicity stunts like the one the Bush administration tried to pull off in Asia, which had zero content, has no effect at all on anything, and is regarded by the rest of the world as an insulting joke.

Yancey: ... expect CO2 concentration to continue to increase well into this century, and likely into the next.

If CO2 concentrations continue to increase "well into this century", it is extremely unlikely that they will increase "into the next", because industrial civilization will not survive into the next century.

NASA scientist James Hansen, Al Gore and others have estimated that we have at most ten years in which to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and avoid irreversible, runaway, catastrophic global warming. They may be optimistic in that belief -- other scientists think we may have already passed such a point of no return.

But it is a fantasy to think that we can continue to increase GHG emissions -- as the USA has increased annual GHG emissions by 15% since 1990 and continues to increase them -- indefinitely (into the next century, yet!) without triggering a global climatic and ecological catastrophe that will wipe out human civilization as we know it.

SA,

Canada is the worst polluter according to the change in standards set by Kyoto. BTW: the article you cite is typically mid-leading. Libs won't know any better. The base date of 1990 is by itself a fraud, one of the many in this garbage. Among the many anomilities is that the Russia economy as well as the economkies of eastern europe collapsed after tha date making their targets easy. Ditto for the UK which was transitioning from coal to cleaner natural gas. None od these nations did a thing to reduce pollution.

I have no idea what your point is regarding Delaware river pollution other than to agree with me. Yes, it is much cleaner and s/b be the model for the rest of the world. As usual, America leads th way.

BTW: The progress has been amazing and promises to get even better. The reef program off NJ has been a terrific success as has the rebuilding of the striper population which is now mor than 4x's 1980 levels. There are 6 known artifical reef's off NJ and two uncharted reefs being studied by the NJ fish commmission to improve the current reefs and future reefs. NJ has an active program for sinking structures to create the kind of debris fish like to create habitat. The more they learn the better they get.

At the same time building codes have been consistently upgraded as well as the water and sewer infrastructure. The water is dramatically cleaner with the highest oxygen levels ever recorded. The ocean and rivers have been continuingly repairing themselves and will only get purer.

Europe is two decades behind and doesn't have the capital to invest as aggressively as the USA has done. Just another American success story.

NASA scientist James Hansen, Al Gore and others have estimated that we have at most ten years in which to significantly reduce CO2 emissions and avoid irreversible, runaway, catastrophic global warming. They may be optimistic in that belief -- other scientists think we may have already passed such a point of no return.

The good news is both are widely recognized as twits. Absolutely nothing has changed as a result of their rantings nor will anything change.

It says everything about how rotten your party has come that a moron like Al Gore is considered an intellectual. A C- student who only got in school because of his daddy and who couldn't complete a graduate level course.

TSA,

I am aware of Charlie Cook. His opinion and $1 will get you a burger at McDonalds. Look up the folks at realclearpolitics. They have a far better record and disagree with Charlie. He know's he not getting in ABC and CNN unless he has good news.

But idiots like rdw argue that since Kyoto doesn't go far enough, it is better to do nothing -- or to go with fake, phony bullshit publicity stunts like the one the Bush administration tried to pull off in Asia, which had zero content, has no effect at all on anything, and is regarded by the rest of the world as an insulting joke.

Conservatives are not arguing Kyoto doesn't go far enough. They are arguing it's a piece of garbage. Each and every aspect. It's braindead. You also have to know that conservatives wear the worlds 'contempt' as a badge of honor. It proves we are correct. It does not matter what they thnk. It only matters what we think.

The hideously polluting extraction of oil from the tar sands of Alberta is for export. Canadians are paying the price for US refusal to reduce oil consumption. The GHG emissions associated with the mining of tar sands are a direct result of US energy policy, not Canadian energy policy; and of course, the GHG emissions from burning the tar sand oil in the US are US emissions, not Canadian emissions.

Isn't that the supreme irony? Liberals block drilling in ANWR so we import from the Tar Sands. Liberals are destroying Kyoto. The most serious emissions from drilling in the tar sands are from producing the oil. That's ALL Canadian emmisions. Pollution from using this oil is no worse from using Librian oil. There's no increase in USA pollution.

This is perfect. We get the oil. Canada gets the polluton. Just think about what's coming. Do ya think Fox will ridicule the Canadians each and every year pollution results are announced? How about Limbaugh? How about the Wall Street Journal? Think they'll limit their ridicule to the Canadians?

ckelly: Of course McCain is unbeatable. Just think how many ballots he can smuggle within his freakish jowls.

Oh my lord, that was funny.

At best, Kyoto can be said to have laid out a framework for international cooperation on global warming, but, to date, has had little real impact

You are far too generous. Kyoto has been counter-productive. The 3rd world has refused to agree to any limits and will continue to refuse to any limits. There is no chance China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, etc., are going to agree to external limits. The result of allowing this has been an exodus of dirty, energy intensive manufacturing capacity from the 1st world to the 3rd world. This will only increase.

The good news is the USA is becoming dramatically cleaner via market mechanisms and using our great wealth to invest in the environment. A great story which is typical of American innovation is the sinking of one of our large carriers off the coast of Florida in an attempt to create fish habitat. It succeeded brilliantly in a very short period of time and is now a major destination for deep sea divers.

The reefs off NJ use old tanks, railroad cars, tires, cement huts and other structures. As Americans always do we study, we learn and we get better and keep on keeping on. There is no doubt the striper population off NJ which is 4x's the size of 1980 levels will be 4 times larger in 2025.

And as of 2025 we still will not have ratified Kyoto.

BTW: The PA State University system has a large number of environmental programs and will soon return Elms and the American Chestnut to our forests in large numbers. Successive generations of blight resistant species are being tested throughout the state and appear to be successful. It's only a matter of time before saplings will be turned out of tree farms and used to strengthen the variety of tree species in the state, and eventually other states. PA also has an active reclimation program for the long closed strip mines and have planted thousands of acres of fast growing plants designed to replenish the soil for progressively hardier species and eventually restore the forests.

America is an amazing place. The last thing we need or want is to allow the UN or EU or any other int'l instituion to slow us down.

The demented Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw wrote regarding James Hansen and Al Gore: The good news is both are widely recognized as twits.

No, the news, which of course is not news at all, is that no one in the real world thinks that, but that's the opinion that your masters have told you to have, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's the opinion that you slavishly have.

rdw: A C- student who only got in school because of his daddy

Yes, that's the story of your hero George W. Bush's life. A C-student who couldn't get into school except on his daddy's legacy at Yale, who failed at every business endeavor he ever attempted and was bailed out of every one by his daddy's rich friends, and whose daddy's rich friends stole the presidency for him so he could be Dick Cheney's sock puppet and the butt boy for corporate gangsters. That's your hero.

rdw: Canada is the worst polluter according to the change in standards set by Kyoto.

False. You don't know what you are talking about. You are completely ignorant about every aspect of Kyoto. But that's the bullshit that your masters spoon-feed you, so, being the mental slave that you are, you slavishly regurgitate it.

rdw: [the Kyoto Protocol is] a piece of garbage. Each and every aspect. It's braindead.

That's total bullshit, coming from someone who doesn't know anything about the Kyoto Protocol. But that's what your masters have told you to think, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's what you slavishly think, and robotically repeat over and over again. You are the brain-dead garbage around here, not Kyoto.

rdw: You also have to know that conservatives wear the worlds 'contempt' as a badge of honor. It proves we are correct. It does not matter what they thnk. It only matters what we think.

You know nothing about what genuine conservatives think, and you insult genuine conservatives by pretending to be one. You are not a conservative. You are member of a cult of mindless mental slaves who live in a corporate-manufactured, one-dimensional cartoon comic book fantasy world of right-wing bullshit propaganda.

It's clear that the only thing that "matters" to you is to slavishly repeat the thoughts and opinions that your masters tell you to have.

There is nothing "honorable" about being a mental slave who slavishly regurgitates the thoughts and opinions that other people tell you to have, and the only "badge" you have to wear is the badge of the brownshirt.

SA,

total take for Al's movie =

Al Gore is a dick. The good news is he doesn't matter. No one is watching him.

The demented Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw wrote: This is perfect. We get the oil. Canada gets the polluton. Just think about what's coming. Do ya think Fox will ridicule the Canadians each and every year pollution results are announced? How about Limbaugh? How about the Wall Street Journal? Think they'll limit their ridicule to the Canadians?

This is perfect. What really matters to you is who the bought-and-paid-for liars of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal will "ridicule".

Then you can read, listen and watch who they "ridicule", and then you will know who you are supposed to ridicule, too, and even the exact words and phrases to use when you ridicule them.

Then, once Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal have told you what to think and say, you can slavishly obey them, and slavishly think and slavishly say exactly what they tell you to.

This is not "conservatism". This is a cult of mental slavery that sucks in ignorant, weak-minded fools like yourself, and turns them into soulless robots.

You are a pitiful creature.

rdw wrote: Al Gore is a dick.

That's what your masters tell you to think and say, so, being the mental slave that you are, that's what you slavishly think and say.

It's a shame to see a human being so degraded and debased as you are.

But that's what a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal does to people: it destroys their minds.

You are a pitiful creature.

I am worse. I am a conservative voter.

Al Gore is a fool. He is ancient history. Kyoto. Kee-shmoto more like. The Dems have nothing and can't do anything anyway.

RDW: I am aware of Charlie Cook. His opinion and $1 will get you a burger at McDonalds.

...and rdw's opinion and $1...will get you something harder to swallow....

China Market Research - China Market Research, China Marketing Research - China Marketing Research, CS视频 - CS视频, Google排名 - Google排名, GPS - GPS, LED灯 - LED灯, Pacs系统 - Pacs系统, PANTONE色卡 - PANTONE色卡, VI设计 - VI设计, WOW gold - WOW gold, 安徽企业名录 - 安徽企业名录, 安检门 - 安检门, 安捷伦 - 安捷伦, 安利 - 安利, 安利 - 安利, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 办公用品 - 办公用品, 包装设计 - 包装设计, 包装设计 - 包装设计, 保险箱 - 保险箱, 北京企业名录 - 北京企业名录, 笔记本租赁 - 笔记本租赁, 变压器 - 变压器, 标记机/打标机 - 标记机/打标机, 标签打印机 - 标签打印机, 标签机 - 标签机, 标志设计 - 标志设计, 标准件/紧固件 - 标准件/紧固件, 波纹管 - 波纹管, 玻璃钢餐桌椅 - 玻璃钢餐桌椅, 玻璃瓶厂 - 玻璃瓶厂, 不锈钢水箱 - 不锈钢水箱, 不锈钢台面 - 不锈钢台面, 不锈箱水箱 - 不锈箱水箱, 步进电机 - 步进电机, 彩钢板 - 彩钢板, 彩票 - 彩票, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 藏獒 - 藏獒, 叉车 - 叉车, 差压开关/差压表/差压变送器 - 差压开关/差压表/差压变送器, 缠绕机/包装机械 - 缠绕机/包装机械, 肠衣 - 肠衣, 肠衣 - 肠衣, 厂房 - 厂房, 厂房 - 厂房, 超声波 - 超声波, 超声波清洗机 - 超声波清洗机, 陈安之 - 陈安之, 陈安之 - 陈安之, 成功学 - 成功学, 成功学 - 成功学, 冲压件/拉伸件 - 冲压件/拉伸件, 抽脂 - 抽脂, 出境旅游 - 出境旅游, 除尘带 - 除尘带, 除湿机 - 除湿机, 除铁器/金属探测仪 - 除铁器/金属探测仪, 除皱 - 除皱, 触点 - 触点, 传动机械 - 传动机械, 传奇私服 - 传奇私服, 传奇私服网 - 传奇私服网, 磁力泵 - 磁力泵, 磁力泵 - 磁力泵, 磁力钻 - 磁力钻, 打包带 - 打包带, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 大头贴/贴纸相机 - 大头贴/贴纸相机, 地埋灯/投光灯 - 地埋灯/投光灯, 点火变压器 - 点火变压器, 电磁阀 - 电磁阀, 电动螺丝刀 - 电动螺丝刀,