Not to mention the fact that he missed the first vote, as well as his own "IRG = terrorists" bill in April 2007.
Posted by JoeCHI at November 1, 2007 06:09 PMTim Russert was only using Edwards, Obama and the other willing idiots just to weaken the leading presidential candidates ahead of the general election. Tim Russert and Chris Mathews have never seriously criticized Giuliani; they always hold him out as strong on security and analyze the race from Giuliani’s point of view. Tim and his other media hacks know that neither Edwards nor Obama stands any chance against the Republican attack dogs.
If any other candidate were to be piled on like Hillary was during the last debate, that candidate will not be left standing, not Hillary, she took all their shots and came out stronger.
I like Edwards, but the country said no to him in 2004, so why does anyone think it will be different this time, and Obama is just too in-experience. Giuliani already mentioned Biden’s plagiarism issue, and I am sure they have dossier on Edwards $400 hair cut and for calling war on terror a bumper sticker, trust me none of those that collaborated with Tim Russert to pile on Hillary can take the heat, they surely can't deliver the presidency in 2008.
I am sure that Republicans are not loosing sleeps over any other candidates except Hillary. In my view, Hillary is the only one with a good chance of winning the presidency in 2008. Criticize her if you must, but let’s guard against politics of personal destruction. Tim Russert is not a friend of Edwards or Obama, he will be very happy to bring them down too. I will hate to see Republican in the White Houst for the next 8 years simply because we help put him there.
Tim Russert was only using Edwards, Obama and the other willing idiots just to weaken the leading presidential candidates ahead of the general election. Tim Russert and Chris Mathews have never seriously criticized Giuliani; they always hold him out as strong on security and analyze the race from Giuliani’s point of view. Tim and his other media hacks know that neither Edwards nor Obama stands any chance against the Republican attack dogs.
If any other candidate were to be piled on like Hillary was during the last debate, that candidate will not be left standing, not Hillary, she took all their shots and came out stronger.
I like Edwards, but the country said no to him in 2004, so why does anyone think it will be different this time, and Obama is just too in-experience. Giuliani already mentioned Biden’s plagiarism issue, and I am sure they have dossier on Edwards $400 hair cut and for calling war on terror a bumper sticker, trust me none of those that collaborated with Tim Russert to pile on Hillary can take the heat, they surely can't deliver the presidency in 2008.
I am sure that Republicans are not loosing sleeps over any other candidates except Hillary. In my view, Hillary is the only one with a good chance of winning the presidency in 2008. Criticize her if you must, but let’s guard against politics of personal destruction. Tim Russert is not a friend of Edwards or Obama, he will be very happy to bring them down too. I will hate to see a Republican in the White House for the next 8 years simply because we help put him there.
Obama has just given the good white people of 3% black Iowa cover for not voting for him.
I believe the phone polls in Iowa are being answered by nice well meaning pc folks telling "white lies", and do not reflect the real world on election day.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 1, 2007 08:18 PMCan anyone please explain why a letter to Bush is so important? I know that letter is going to end up where the copy of the U.S. Constitution is -- inside the toilet of the WH. I'm no Obama or Biden supporter, and their signing or not signing would mean nothing if I supported either. I interpret that letter for what it is: an act without significance. If Clinton and all the co-signers of that letter had instead introduced an amendment that stipulated that no money could be used to attack Iran without prior approval from the Congress, then it would be significant.
Posted by Prabhata at November 1, 2007 08:37 PMI like what Kos wrote about Hillary's performance in the last debate:
"I watched the debate, and honestly, while not her [Hillary's] best performance, I don't know if I'd call it a "night of fumbles". I guess it's all relative. But we're witnessing the power of the media to create and shape the conventional wisdom.
The same people who have been telling us for years that Hillary was inevitable, are now apparently hoping for a real contest. If so, then good. We need one of those anyway. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll even get Hillary to explain to us why she wants to be president.
I know Edwards is running because of the disparities of the Two Americas. I know Dodd is running to restore our Constitution. I know Obama is running because he wrote a great speech back in 2004 (or something like that).
But Hillary? If this stops becoming a coronation, maybe we'll get a rationale for her candidacy after all. She's clearly felt no need to give us one thus far."
Posted by Prabhata at November 1, 2007 08:49 PMI do wish you chage your byline to read:
by Jeff Dinelli, Clinton Supporter
It's not what you say, it's that what you say has a different significance once I remember that you are the designated Clinton embed. Realizing that, I take your points with all the seriousness I accorded to Candy Crowley reporting on George Bush's campaign in 2000.
Posted by bob at November 1, 2007 09:30 PM"an act without significance" That's exactly what it is. The president can attack anyone without Congressional approval. Congress enters the picture when an attack turns into a sustained event. I believe it's set at 60 days, then Congress gets its say. Remember Grenada in Reagan's times. In and out within a short time period. There's also Panama in the 90's. This letter of hers has as much importance as Senator Reid's letter to Clear Chanel over Rush. A value only consisting of those who signed it signatures are valued.
Posted by peter at November 1, 2007 09:46 PMI just watched the debate. Its pretty clear that there is virtually no difference between Hillary and Obama on policy issues; there was a vigorous exchange of agreements mixed in with the character attacks.
The Democratic Party no doubt does everything they can to encourage the candidacy of an old, short, squeaky-voiced, white man that pleads for peace and sanity at the same time he embraces everything from reparations for slavery to UFO sightings and associations to Shirley MacClaine. In doing so, they ensure that ideals like Peace, Justice, and Humanism are branded inane Caricature.
I do believe that true believers in progressive ideals are immune to identity politics; however, I agree that the vast majority of American voters are not.
Watching the panel trade barbs, I'm left with the sickening feeling that the Democratic candidates are nothing more than wardrobed, made-up, written-for, and coached models designed by Madison Avenue executives; Window Mannequins displaying a parade of 'seasonal styles' in front of different 'target markets'.
21st Century Manchurian Candidates. Sanitized and Homogenized: just like Corporate America.
Posted by Tampa Student at November 1, 2007 09:54 PMI was surprised at first too that Obama and Biden didn't sign the letter. But I get it--they don't want to help Hillary undo her vote. They don't want to contribute to giving her cover. I don't know if it's the right move politically or not, but I can see it from their side. If they signed, they'd be basically agreeing that Kyl-Lieberman wasn't opening the door for war with Iran and they don't want to give up beating Clinton up over it. And people call Hillary calculating? They all are--you have to be in politics, especially if you're a senator running for president. This is why senators aren't elected.
Posted by CG at November 2, 2007 04:23 AMI, like, so totally agree. Gonna copy your post and put it on my desktop.
Posted by coral at November 2, 2007 05:01 AMEdwards is running because he wants the office and is using the disparity of the two Americas platform to get there.
Obama is on an ego trip. I'll be sorry if he reaches his destination.
Clinton has a history of public service which Kos might consider as a reason for her run for the presidency.
I don't see the letter as any more valuable or forceful than one from Patrick Leahy to Alberto Gonzales or President Bush. 30 senators are not a majority of anything and the "you'd better not even think about it!" tone displays the impotence of this crowd in the face of a Resolution that passed.
You don't suppose the letter was designed to provide Hillary political cover do you?
Posted by gtash at November 2, 2007 05:19 AMChuck Hagel wrote a letter, too.
Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 2, 2007 05:39 AMNow we know why Obama didn't sign the letter.
Democrat Obama to Introduce Resolution Saying Bush Has No Authority for War With Iran
One-upmanship is alive and well. Which is fine, as long as the public knows that there is opposition to another war despite the drumbeat from the media.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 2, 2007 06:00 AMA letter of this nature written to Bush isn't worth the paper it's written on. Is that not clear by now? I don't care who signs it or not, it will achieve no substantive purpose.
Posted by T2 at November 2, 2007 06:02 AMIf Clinton and all the co-signers of that letter had instead introduced an amendment that stipulated that no money could be used to attack Iran without prior approval from the Congress, then it would be significant.
Exactly. Well said. Kyl/Lieberman, warning letter, who gives a shit? The guy gave himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections indefinitely. He's gonna do what he wants.
"BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL!!"
But what happens when you take the checkbook away? Sure you'd be accused of not supporting the troops, but that's a talking point. Nothing more. We still control the money, right?
Hey wait. Hasn't Kucinich been saying this all along? Hasn't Ron Paul?
But somehow those two "fringe", "unelectable" guys have been pushed to stage rear while we focus on this Obama/Edwards/Hillary/Rudy puppet show.
Still a long way to go, kids. Lots can happen. To quote my long lost friend God of War:
Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
(That's a shout out to you, brutha. In case you're still lurking out there somewhere...)
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 2, 2007 07:00 AM"This, my friends, should be a freakin' Deal Breaker for Obama."
Yep. And what New Age said: Punkinhead is no Democrat's friend.
BTW, the first line should say HRC was put through the "proverbial wringer" (yeah, I know we're a little touchy on Ws these days....).
Posted by bartcopfan at November 2, 2007 07:24 AMBartcop, I removed the "W" key from my home keyboard. Now that I'm at work, I'll fix it. Thank you.
Did I tell you already how cool your site is?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 2, 2007 08:03 AMAnd while Senators play political games, Governors get elected President. Bill Richardson has said he spent 80% of his time as U.N. Ambassador on Iraq and Middle East issues. He's negotiated with foreign governments in the region. He's got the best foreign policy acumen and diplomatic skills. The others: the next deal they negotiate with a foreign government will be their first.
George W. Bush has shown us where lack of experience gets us, among other things. It's time for the kids to stop playing in foreign policy and let the adults have a turn. Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate to restore America's standing in the global community, and resolve the important foreign policy issues that face our nation.
Posted by Ken Camp at November 2, 2007 08:17 AMBill Richardson is the most qualified candidate to restore America's standing in the global community, and resolve the important foreign policy issues that face our nation.
(This message paid for by the Committee to Elect Bill Richardson.)
Posted by MaskedVigilante at November 2, 2007 08:35 AM"...According to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization...."
gee, maybe they should have done that on the floor of the SENATE
but I'm impressed with the letter, expect "peace in our time" to break out any moment
typical Hillary, with Kyle-LIEbermann and this Great Letter she's trying to play both sides of the street
Hillary's "history of public service" has been one long quest for the presidency. I wonder why none of the candidates called out Russert for his biased questions, why do people enable this wolf in sheep's clothing?
Posted by john griffith at November 2, 2007 10:28 AMBartcop, I removed the "W" key from my home keyboard. Now that I'm at work, I'll fix it. Thank you.
Did I tell you already how cool your site is?
Whoa, whoa, WHOA, JD!
Thanks for the fix and the nice words for Bart, but please understand that I ain't him. I'm just a big fan of his, hence my moniker.
Posted by bartcopfan at November 2, 2007 11:45 AMThanks Bartcopfan for noticing, I am only reminding my friends here that while it is ok for democrats do duel it out in the primary, they should also be careful and realize that Tim Russert was not helping Edwards and Obama out of the goodness of his heart, in fact I will go further and say that Tim’s motive is to see that Democrat does not win in 2008, that give him reason to talk about how Democrat snatch defeat out of the jaw of victory. Tim Russert and Chris Mathews have never tried to take down Giuliani.
Tim has criticized Edwards $400 haircut in the past and will be happy to do so if he has to. Yes Tim Russert is no democrat’s friend. Let the democrat fight it out as they should, but without the help of the like of Tim Russert and Chris Mathews. Thank you.
Posted by New Age at November 2, 2007 06:01 PMWell obama want his OWN personal Iran policy...no voting or signbing unless it is hos own res....and then once/if he gets the presidency he will talk with akhmenijad personally woithour any conditions at all...
Maybe before he meets Akhmmmm??? he will take away the irg as terrorists notification....
So there you have it...An Obama personal US position.....not a congressional or US policy...
Posted by mp at November 2, 2007 06:17 PMThat is a lie. They both were not there when the letter was sent. AND they both issued statements of support for Webb's letter.
Biden voted against K/L...he already made his statement anyway.
Posted by Jillian at November 2, 2007 11:29 PMOhhhh......I get it, now BartCopFan! Gotcha. I'm a little slow. Maybe I should change my name to Jeff BartcopFanAlso Dinelli, then. But then someone wanted me to throw Hillary Clinton Supporter in there too. How's Jeff BartcopfanandHillarysupporter Dinelli. I don't think Soto's gonna like it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 3, 2007 09:20 AM