<p>“FF what is this all the love about the senator from Israel”</p>
<p>If you are speaking about Lieberman, I probably disagree with 70% of his positions. However, on the one position that trumps all others, Lieberman has shown remarkable strength of conviction. Of course Ed Koch also showed similar resolve by supporting Bush against Kerry. He used the same logic: he disagreed with most of Bush’s domestic views but saw terrorism/national security as something that trumps all the others. I guess by Koch taking that position, UCLA would want him to turn in his Democratic Party papers as well.</p>
<p>The Republicans are the ones who abandoned national security. 30 to 40 years this country had a silly notion, it was only attack countries that are an imminent threat to you or that they have already attacked you. Iraq was no such war.</p>
<p>Forty years ago the Democrats (majority in congress and the presidency) were waging a war of genocide on a harmless southeast Asian country that makes the Iraq war look like training exercise. You want to try again?</p>
Well if you ask FF and the Busheviks they say the mistake was LEAVING Vietnam too early. They believe we hadn’t killed off enough people. Either way, I think it was the biggest mistake of LBJ’s presidency, but the southern , racist, war-mongering division of the Democratic Party is gone. They’ve crossed the aisle if you don’t recall. And the anti-war movement was in the Democratic Party not t he Republican Party. Humphrey, McGovern, etc.</p>
<p>Only to have a democratic President commit this country to the war in Bosnia. I really didn’t see a threat to the US there, anyone else? Sounds a little “pre-emptive” to me.</p>
<p>Gottaloveucla, you start with a filter and then distort everything to fit that filter. It wasn’t LBJ who first committed field troops to Vietnam, it was LBJ and the “Best and the Brightest” of the Democratic party. It was not the southern wing of the party who was in charge at the beginning, and it wasn’t the southern wing who populated the Johnson administration. You can indulge in any revisionist fantasy you want, but the Dems used to vie with Republicans for enthusiast anti-Communism, and the opposition to the war (before Nixon took office) did not come from northern Dems in Congress. The issue that ultimately drove southern Dems out of the party was Civil Rights, not the Vietnam war. </p>
<p>Humphrey was not an anti-war candidate in 1968. He had asked to Johnson to allow him to be his running mate again, and had to scramble to put together a campaign after Johnson dropped out of the race. The anti-war candidates continued to hack at Humphrey’s promise to continue support for the South Vietnamese government until the convention. Humphrey was not a darling of the antiwar movement.</p>
<p>McGovern’s star only rose in the Democrat party after Nixon was elected, and opposition to the war became a safe anti-Republican position.</p>
<p>What difference does it make what people say today about LBJ’s policies? You made the bald statement that 40 years ago American leaders only attacked other countries that were directly threatening us and I posted to point out that you were wrong? What would the Busheviks say about that?</p>
<p>Hillary Rodham Clinton
She’s been stirring up controversy in Washington for more than a decade and shows no signs of stopping. This pioneering woman was the only first lady to be subpoenaed and the only first lady to be elected to the role of U.S. senator (New York). As senator she’s been a power player in issues ranging from the war in Iraq to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And now she’s aiming to be the first female president of the United States, though a dance-off with Obama Girl may be required to secure the nomination. Will Bill become the nation’s first husband?</p>
<p>Of course, a closer reading of the link’s title also reveals
Most Influential Women of 2007: Mind Body & Soul </p>
<p>Mind Body & Soul ? I’d say that one out of three ain’t that bad for HRH Clinton. Just as deal Bill aptly recognized now, and a long time ago.</p>
<p>By the way, whenever AOL runs one of their leading and biased posts, it usually shows that Lady Clinton has the best chances (by far) to win the democratic nomination, but can’t ever carry it all the way. On the other hand, she always wins the most despised politician award in a landslide, mostly due to male voters.</p>
<p>Happy Holidays to you too Xiggi…you have a year to enjoy Bush. Be prepared to live under HRC (unless Republicans steal the election)</p>
<p>Breaking news from Drudge:</p>
<p>SHOCK POLL: CLINTON DOUBLES OBAMA; TAKES COMMANDING LEAD</p>
<p>WASHINGTON (CNN) Call it an early Christmas gift for Hillary Clintons campaign: A new Iowa poll seems to show the New York senator with a stunning double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus-goers.</p>
<p>Clinton and Obama were neck-and-neck in last weeks American Research Group poll. But in the new survey, conducted December 20-23, she leads the Illinois senator by 15 percentage points, 34 to 19 percent. Obama is now in a statistical tie for second place with former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who has 20 percent of the vote.</p>
<p>The Republicans will steal the election - I’ve already seen them roaming my neighborhood with electronic devices designed to reprogram feckless Democrats into voting randomly at the polls. It worked in 2000, it’ll work again. The aluminum foil the Democrats are wearing as protection is permeable to the unstoppable reprogramming energy. :D</p>
<p>So does HRC have any actual experience which would persuade me into giving her the nuclear trigger?</p>
<p>“The Republicans will steal the election - I’ve already seen them roaming my neighborhood with electronic devices designed to reprogram feckless Democrats into voting randomly at the polls. It worked in 2000, it’ll work again. The aluminum foil the Democrats are wearing as protection is permeable to the unstoppable reprogramming energy.”</p>
In some ways I find her somewhat attractive.</p>