<p>For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could be seriously upset by what Hillary said about MLK - unless it just happened to help the person’s agenda.</p>
<p>With regard to the death penalty, I will stop here. This is a highly sensitive subject and clearly one that everyone has an opinion on. Let’s leave it at that.
Cartera, I agree…don’t get how some are so outraged unless it has come at an opportune time to find a reason to bash her yet again and help further endorse and sugarcoat Obama. While I have nothing personal against the man and have at times, liked hearing what he has to say, I don’t think ultimately he will get the nomination.</p>
<p>Hanna, that’s interesting.</p>
<p>Cissa: John Edwards is quite a viable candidate and will most definitely be a big part of this Democratic debate tonight. I predict that Obama and Clinton will ultimately self-destruct (either at the debate tonight–just go up in a puff of smoke-- or later), and Edwards will emerge as the strongest candidate and the one who is clear and concise on all the issues, and who has been for quite some time. I really do believe that he is the only one of the 3 who can beat a Republican (which will most likely end up being McCain). Edwards will do well in Nevada, too. At this point, I would hope people are sick to death of Clinton and Obama and their little tiffs. I know I sure am. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not, but shouldn’t the people get a chance to decide? Why should the media decide? Polls have been wrong before, and complete, surprising upsets have happened before. One could say that giuliani is not viable, or, at the very least, less viable than, say, Ron Paul since Ron Paul beat him in Iowa & S. Carolina. But giuliani still considers himself a viable candidate!</p>
<p>Remember in the previous election when McCain won the early states’ primaries and everyone thought he would be the winner? But he got beat out by bush. So the early states are not always indicative of the end result.</p>
<p>For this reason, ALL candidates should be on ALL the debates. Otherwise, we are being TOLD who our choices are by the media, rather than having a chance to choose them ourselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said! I agree 100%!</p>
<p>Having said that, I also feel it is wrong to allow ANY POSSIBILITY that the killer will kill again. The sad fact is that jail time does not rehabilitate hardened criminals. ‘Paying’ for their crimes does not necessarily make them fit for society. Why should they have ANY chance of killing again? THAT (releasing them into society) is not fair to the rest of society.</p>
<p>Therefore, once someone is violent, I think they should forfeit ALL rights to live freely in society. They should be imprisoned for life. Period. Zero tolerance for premeditated violent acts.</p>
<p>This could have the same effect as the death penalty in that it would be an effective deterrent while at the same time eliminating any bad karma from killing an innocent person. If a convicted inmate is later exonerated, then of course he is freed, but other than that, they’re locked up for good, never again able to hurt an innocent victim.</p>
<p>If an inmate had a spiritual awakening, then we’d know it was authentic because nothing would be gained for him in terms of lessened sentence. The spiritual awakening would have benefits in the next life only. (And, since I believe in reincarnation and karma, it would have the added benefit of forcing the criminal to live in prison for the rest of his life, and maybe contemplate his actions. If he gets to the point of having remorse, then maybe he’ll be a better person in his next life.)</p>
<p>With the present overcrowded prison system, this plan wouldn’t be feasible. However, if prisons were reserved for VIOLENT criminals ONLY, there would be plenty of room. Embezzlers and non-violent thieves could have a more suitable punishment, one that fits the crime, such as forfeiting their income for the rest of their lives. Drug addicts don’t belong in prison; they belong in rehab. </p>
<p>With those adjustments, it could work. It would solve the problem of the death penalty conflict, and it would act as a deterrent. If people knew they’d have ZERO chance of ever getting out of prison if they killed someone, they might think twice about it.</p>
<p>Until a physical cause and cure are found, pedophiles would be in the same category as murderers. No child should be at risk in having a child predator released. There have been too many repeat offenders in the past. </p>
<p>I’m a little unsure how to handle rapists, though, only because there is such a large window for error. If we could be 100% certain of the rapist’s guilt, then I’d say make the punishment fit the crime: physical castration. (not chemical as it is too easy for him to quit the meds and revert.) But that wouldn’t work because once it’s done, it’s done, and what if he’s innocent and just got framed by the girl? Not sure what to do on that one!</p>
<p>I agree that the media controls way too much. I don’t think John Edwards gets the coverage he should. He had detailed plans about what to do in Iraq, health care, education, etc., long before either Obama or Clinton could ever muster together any plans on anything. They followed his lead, yet the media only wants to cover them and their ridiculous little tiffs. But Kucinich, Gravel, Biden, and a few others (can’t even remember their names now) really have never stood a chance for presidency. Kucinich got less than 2% of the vote in NH. He didn’t even get any delegates in Iowa, did he? He really is becoming the Ralph Nader of this campaign (except I think, in the past, Nader actually got more votes).</p>
<p>“Having said that, I also feel it is wrong to allow ANY POSSIBILITY that the killer will kill again.”</p>
<p>That’s why I think Bill Clinton should be placed in a prison cell, and they should throw away the key. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance for premeditated violent acts, to be specific, a million of them, and specifically directed against children.</p>
<p>mini, do you really think Clinton is the only one? Respectfully, I think it’s naive to think that a single leader of any country, even ours, could be singlehandedly responsible for something of that magnitude. That’s not to say he wasn’t involved, but you seem to be directing all the blame towards him and neglecting others, in this and other heinous events.</p>
<p>To say Bill Clinton is responsible for what is going on in Iraq is ludicrious and akin to saying that Carter was the one that brought peace and amity between Israel and Palestine. These problems existed well before he went into office. What I don’t think the average American realizes is that under Bush, the administration sees the invasion of Iraq as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. </p>
<p>Clinton hoped very much to leave his term with a crown of achievment and instead left in a crown of thorns that turned into one of the worst periods of relations between Palestinians and Israelis in their tragic and shared history. BUT to say this was his fault is rediculous.
Remember who gave the land, of Israel to the Jews…the UN. It is misleading to say that the UN gave Israel to the Jews as some kind of present or consolation for the Holocaust. The point was that Britain just could not cope with the problems in Palestine/Israel and in effect handed the territory to the UN. Let’s see where this started.
Bush ONLY NOW has stepped up to the plate, he had 7 years to do something! He turned his back on what many speculate he saw as an unsurmountable feat…peace between the two countries.
He recently was so bold as to say Israel should compensate the Palestinians or the ones that have been forced out of their homes in the land that is now Israel. Let’s see who is really going to be the one to finally do something and make it happen, without our intervention and actualy enforcement of whatever peace treaty is adopted, it is only another thread of hope that has fallen apart. To say any recent president is solely responsible for the disaster in this region is not really looking at the big picture.</p>
<p>Just a follow up to the debate the night before…I have come full circle and now think I support John Edwards. I have always liked him as a person, and for the most part agree with his agenda, except for a couple of issues but after that debate where Obama and Hilary went at it like two juvenile high school brats, I lost any and all respect I had for either. They were so malicious and scathing towards one another that I lost much confidence in their character and integrity. I feel like between debates all that they concentrated on was digging up dirt on one another and memorizing it to be able to recite at a a second’s notice, which they did not hesitate to do. I feel this has alienated some of their onetime supporters, the more people i speak to.
John Edwards came off diginified, with his head held high, and his integrity intact. I am indeed giving him a second look. Anyone else get the same impression?</p>
<p>It’s just another Clinton tactic - Obama was not looking for a fight. He finally had to address the constant lies and distortions that Hillary and Bill keep coming at him. Edward looks clean because he was not part of the conflict, but be clear that the conflict was all about Hillary and Bill. It does hurt Obama, but it hurts him to let the lies continue. It’s part of the double-teaming strategy which is working so well. Please read the George Packer piece in The New Yorker (Jan. 28) and today’s Maureen Dowd column in the NY Times (Jan. 23). I can’t link but if anyone else can, they are worth reading.</p>
<p>Read the NY Times article to which you referred, and I do agree that initially Hilary was perhaps the one who came on a little stronger but frankly I think they both are party to this nonsense, he is no better. It’s disgusting and really shows the true colors. I am equally as appalled with Bill Clinton’s behavior and tactics, really hitting below the belt…all three of them.
This can only help John Edwards but do some major damage to the two others.</p>
<p>From today’s WSJ OpEd:</p>
<p>"One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton’s attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.”</p>
<p>…Mr. Obama’s two examples are instructive because they are so wonderfully Clintonian. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama’s claims of having opposed the Iraq war all along as a “fairy tale.” …</p>
<p>But it was also a classic distortion intended to turn voter attention away from his wife’s own Iraq fairy tale. She’s the candidate who voted for the war and backed it for years before she decided she had to be sort of against it, only to later become really against it, and now to favor a withdrawal starting in 60 days.
"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bluebayou: You’re right about Clinton, AND she took a very long time coming to some decision (any decision) about the Iraq War. She was notably non-committal on the war for what seemed like forever.</p>
<p>“mini, do you really think Clinton is the only one? Respectfully, I think it’s naive to think that a single leader of any country, even ours, could be singlehandedly responsible for something of that magnitude. That’s not to say he wasn’t involved, but you seem to be directing all the blame towards him and neglecting others, in this and other heinous events.”</p>
<p>There are always foot-soldiers. But it was Bill Clinton and his henchmen (and woman - and maybe two, hence the Hillary question) who concocted a genocidal plan whereby havoc and death wreaked on the Iraqi population, especially children, might result in the military revolting, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and inviting the U.S. in. To that end, Clinton tried to open up negotiations with Chemical Ali (responsible for gassing both the Kurds, and killing half a million Iranians, with Reagan/GHWB’s blessing - the Rumsfeld Handshake), to be part of the new regime. It was Bill Clinton who tried to have the CIA infiltrate the U.N. Weapons Inspections Team, only to be found out. It was Bill Clinton with George Tenet who concocted the Big Lie of 1998 to get the so-called “experienced” Democrats (Biden, Dodd, Levin, Gore) to call for military operations against Iraq after the genocide had failed. It was Bill Clinton who removed the U.N. Weapons Inspectors from Iraq when they wouldn’t go along with the Big Lie. It was Bill Clinton who launched the largest U.S. aerial bombing since Viet Nam against Iraq in December 1998. And suffice it to say, once the Big Lie had been sold to the so-called “experienced Democrats”, it would have been awfully difficult for them to oppose the hostile, aggressive occupation.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it is fair to say the Bill Clinton is a mass murderer on an order of magnitude 8 times greater than Idi Amin, guilty of killing more children than Pol Pot, and far more than those now being tried of war crimes from the former Yugoslavia, and doing so for explicit political purposes. Did others carry out his orders? Why, of course! There are always “good Germans”. But that fact does not absolve leaders for their decisionmaking.</p>
<p>As to bipartisan foreign and military policy since the nonviolent overthrow of the Shah of Iran, I have written about that elsewhere.</p>
<p>I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet, but this is an article on the “experience” factor:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1&em&ex=1201064400&en=56246b39bf197e5b&ei=5087&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1&em&ex=1201064400&en=56246b39bf197e5b&ei=5087&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>New member here! I really agreed with both articles (Kristof and Dowd, NY Times). The Clintons to me are coming across as competitive to the point of an “all’s fair in love and war…” mentality. Bill is acting very un-Presidential. Re: experience: Both Obama and Clinton are relatively new senators who worked in the private sector before becoming elected. “First Lady” should not be considered “experience.” Talk about resume padding!!!</p>