The difference is much starker if you put the positions in context. Clinton has embraced the position of the "muscular" foreign policy and has been in sync with the Bush outlook...that by destabilizing the Middle East, removing Saddam, regardless of WMD's, the US was improvingthe security picture for the US and for that region. Clinton has never disputed those very dangerous underpinnings ofthe disaster. In fact she refuses to indicate that there is anything WRONG or dangerous with the Bush worldview. Obama, Edwards, Webb, Clark, Kucinich, Richardson and Vilsack have not only criticized the incompetency of the Bush administration they have taken issue to various degrees with this foreign policy outlook that underlies the mess and tragedy.
The consequences then of their similar sounding comments for Iran mean different things in context. At this time when it seriously looks like the Bush administration may provoke and instigate a new conflict, Clinton plays up to AIPAC and reinforces Bush war making noises. This is Clinton redux. Will we hear four years from now, my position was right (apparently like Bush it is always right) just Bush did not give me the accurate intelligence and valid information? No. The information is apparent and Clinton cannot lie her way out of it: the critical information is the history of deception and the lying of the Bush administration, and its longstanding oft-indicated desire to engage Iran militarily. Clinton's tepid response...no indicated opposition, is really a non-response, and it continues her enabling role for the worst excesses of the most dangerous government we have ever had. It rules her out as a candidate and in fact marks her as a danger to our security and well-being.

War, when it comes to us, should arrive by necessity, not by choice.

Keeping war as an option is, as you say, unacceptable.

Anyone who finds threat of violence an appropriate negotiating tool is one I do not want as my leader.

If use of force to resolve disputes is illegal, even to defend your self, then call a cop.

Obama says negotiate, period. And he includes Syria.

The difference is obvious.

MJ Rosenberg, you are completely ignoring this line (and I don't know how many times I need to point this out and repeat it on this site):

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far.

How is that "negotiate, period"? Does "period" mean "and then we have some other options if that doesn't work?". Because that's not what "period" means to me.

This is politics. Even though it is almost Valentines Day, our job is not to fall in love and ignore our lover's faults but to point them out.

Says the guy that used four exclamation points to describe Obama's interview on 60 Minutes?

I'm sorry, but 1 exclamation point is emphasis. 2 exclamation points is excitement. 3 exclamation points is adoration. And 4 exclamation points is infatuation.

You are ignoring the facts because you're in love with the candidate. To spin it the other way around is pure Rovian style rhetoric.

Ouch!

I don't know who Jay is because that's not my name. Anyway, those who refuse to honestly compare the two statements are not going to be persuaded by the likes of me.

But, let's try again.
Hillary at AIPAC (from her website. Not a word changed or omitted.

"Israel is confronting many of the toughest challenges in her history, in a neighborhood that is less secure than ever. At this moment of peril, what is vital is that we stand by our friend and our ally and we stand by our own values. Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely, Iran. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond, including the U.S. I don't need to remind this group that about a month ago the Iranian government hosted a conference in Tehran whose sole purpose was to deny the Holocaust.

"Now that conference was beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptable behavior and we must not treat this situation as business as usual. The gathering was hosted by the leader of the member of a United Nations state and by a leader that has raised serious international concerns over his country's nuclear ambitions and who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult, not only to a memory of the millions of Jews who suffered and died in the Shoah but also to the troops of the U.S. and its allies, who in the fight to liberate Europe from Nazism bore witness to the reality of the Holocaust.

"Such comments add greater urgency to the necessity to doing everything we can to deny nuclear weapons to Iran. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.

"But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders.

THEN: On negotiations:

" There are no easy answers to the complex situation we face today. I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us. And I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.

"This is a worthy debate to have in our country today. There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share."

NOW OBAMA: His entire statement on 60 Minutes. Would he talk to Iran or Syria?

"OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran's the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it's placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it's made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.

ANYONE WHO cannot see the differences here just isn't very interested.

Believe it or not, other smarter people have already accounted for the need of self defense in international law and have defined it - so attacking people just to get your way is not "self-defense". Not for the US, not for Israel, not for anyone. You can't dress up aggression as self-defense, and any candidate who says that attacking other countries is an "option" is a criminal. Period.

I guess you guys can't tell me who is supposed to benefit from the United States going to war with Iran. I know I am three steps behind all of you, but I am just trying go figure out how the United States benefits by an oil crisis and the permanent radicalization of 70 million Iranians.

Maybe one of the trolls could give me the neocon theory?

Ron Byers

I hope you're making bucks working as human lie-detector. Also gene analyser since you've determined Hilary is genetically identical to Bill.

How do we decide what is best for the country? Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, the people decide through elections and public speech and assembly. We do not simply accept the decisions of some. Even if this has happened in the past, such as Roosevelt's efforts on behalf of the Brits, or recently in Iraq, it is not a principle but only a practice.

If anything has emphasized shallow thinking it is the overturning of the Fairness Doctrine, which eliminated the venues for extended discussion and replaced them with 30-second ads and soundbites on the news.

I do not know if Hillary can get the nomination or if the United States is ready for a woman for President. However, the more she is attack by the American Left and especially for her position on Iraq the greater her chances in November 2008.

Despite wishing it away Americans are going to want a President who is tough enough to protect the nation. If Hillary yields to the Left she is done. As she raises more and more money Obama and Edwards are going to have turn on each other to separate themsevles as the non-Hillary. That is great for her.

All the other candidates are all going to train their fire on Obama and Edwards too as they need to be Hillary's alternative. Biden in particular is going to force all the candidates focus on Iraq after the U.S. leaves. I do not see a Democrat, perhaps except for having Bush as the sitting President, wanting to say America caused the problems in Iraq when most of the killing have been done by Iraqis.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Here is the statement Obama made to the Chicago Daily Tribune editorial board in an article dated September 25, 2004:

"U.S. senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistant to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

"Obama said that the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. 'That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions,'he said."
"' But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran,' Obama said.'"

"Obama's willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama however also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort although he believes President Bush did not make the case for the Iraq invasion."

" 'With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to get blown up and we don't want to get blown up, so you do the game theory and calculate ways to contain,' Obama said. 'I think that there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make these same calculations.' "

Now explain the differences between Clinton and Obama's positions.

 If there is any difference it is between someone saying they are pro-abortion rights and someone saying they are pro-choice.

No. A person who says they are pro-life sounds like they are for life but they are really anti-abortion. A person who says they are pro-choice is open to both abortion and no abortion, to be determined by the individual circumstances.  The latter is negotiable with all options  based on analysis of the circumstances whereas the former is actually asserting a non-negotiable stance, even if it sounds like it is negotiable it isn't.

Hillary is unequivocally aggressive in her tone and stance she only states no options are off the table after saying what she will NOT negotiate. Barack tells us no options are off the table but he WILL negotiate. He does not have preconditions. Hillary does. Hillary makes Iran out to be a hostile empire we must threaten with action. Barack says we should be more aggressive about diplomacy. He speaks of opportunities to resolve differences. Hillary does not. Barack says the current administrations position of not engaging is flat out wrong. Hillary claims that the position is one of good faith and that she would use a different strategy. Which says she fundamentally agrees with analysis and only is willing to change strategy because it has been ineffective. 

These two people are saying two very different things and are approaching resolving the situation in two entirely different ways.

Point of fact, Hillary's statement is similar to GWBUSH's when it requested the AUMF.  He said he was going to ask Saddam to let the inspectors in to look for WMD's but he wanted the authority to use force if he didn't comply. That was what he said, it was not what he meant, and his actions were to engage in a pre-emptive war.  Same thing Hillary is saying. She is being aggressive and saying she will 'engage' but not take options off the table. Which is code for using the options FIRST, just like Bush worded his statement. It sounds conciliatory but isn't. Look at the statements:

HRC: "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.

.BHO: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly

HRC: "But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. 

 BHO: The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

 HRC: I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us. And I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.

BHO: It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries.

HRC: There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share."

BHO: I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong.

Now compare that to the statements Senator Obama made to the Chicago Tribune and explain the difference.

Replace your period with an exclamation point. It still doesn't change you from being wrong.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. For anyone that cares, The UN under the self defense clause authorized his removal as well as numerous other UNSCRs. Under the terms of the UN mandated ceasefire and UNSCR 687, the US reserves the right and obligation to resume hostilities if they fail to comply with the terms of the ceasefire and UNSCRs. They were in breach. Find me someone that claims Saddam was not in breach. We got 1441 in order to revisit the issue. We took Saddam out. If you don't like it, call a cop. I really don't care. Exclamation point!

Now compare that to the statements Senator Obama made to the Chicago Tribune and explain the difference.

I am addressing the two statements here. Hopefully, you will engage on those and note the differences. Bringing in additional statements simply shifts the focus from the thread.

Hillary is being much more aggressive, she is stating what she will not do. Barack is exhibiting far more diplomacy and addressing common areas of interest to achieve a goal. He has the best interest of the nation at heart. Hillary is speaking to warhawks and the pro-Israel lobby. A tactic which has brought us to the point we are at in terms of our ME foreign policy...FAILURE. Hillary is simply more of the same on the foreign policy issue.

Barack serves on the Senate  Foreign Relations Committee and Hillary serves on the Senate Armed Svcs. committtee. He is focused on diplomacy, building coalitions and consensus. Hillary has her hand on the nuke button and is STATING that!!

Their positions are the  difference between Arafat and Sadat, MLK and Malcolm X..the goal may be the same but the routes they are advocating for getting there are worlds apart.

You appear to be focused on the stated goal not the route to achieve it.  Yes, Hillary and Barack both seemingly have the same goal and our nations interest at heart, but to date, their statements and methods for achieving that goal are vastly different.

That is the difference, hopefully you will take the time to see that.

You can stop with the comparisons to police, OK? Because it doesn't wash. The use of force to resolve international disputes IS ILLEGAL. Except for the very narrowly defined situation of self-defense (proportionate response to an immediate attack) or authorized under Chapt 7 by the entire UNSC, the use of force is ILLEGAL. Military attack is not an "option" - it is a CRIME.

Where is the difference in these two statements? Keep all options on the table and negotiate. If there is any difference it is between someone saying they are pro-abortion rights and someone saying they are pro-choice.

The difference I sense is more one of tone. Hillary's statements seem more aggressive and belicose. Maybe she's trying to sound tough so she won't be dismissed as presidential material because she's a woman. But it's that kind of calculation that I find so annoying in her. So what if she's a woman? If she's a good choice for president as-is, then she's a good candidate. It strikes me when a politician starts play-acting like this-- as she seems to me to be doing here, and in other ways -- that they're not comfortable in their own skin. I sense a desperate need here, and that's a dangerous character flaw. Memo to Hillary: trust us enough to be honest with us about who you are. Otherwise, go away.

Frankly, I want to sense that the person I can support is someone who's sure of themselves, but who also seems to have enough intelligence to admit flaws and mistakes, given the unholy mess and nightmare that the current noisy, bellicose and derranged adminstration has led us into.

I like Obama's formulations and his persona better, because he strikes me as someone who's character is more solid and reliable. He's got a lot to learn, but I have a sense that the learning curve is gonna be a lot shorter with this one.... It's just an impression, but I'm just an ordinary person, not a policy wonk. ...So I'm probably right. :-)

Hillary seems to be echoing the Bush "we should spread our values at the point of a gun" rhetoric.  I completely and unequivocably reject that strategy.  If she is the Democratic nominee in '08 and maintains that position I will not pull the presidential lever when I step into the voting booth.  There will an intentional "undervote" for president in CT in '08.

I am completely opposed to "wars of choice".  I think sans an attack on the US, our interests, one of our allies or under the auspices of the UN, the US unilaterally waging a war is immoral and illegitimate.  My question to Mrs. Clinton (and every other Democratic presidential candidate) would be her views on the legitimacy of US military actions abroad when there is no provocation.  Does she advocate unilateral wars of choice?  If she does I will not vote for her even if not voting for the republican either.  It is time this country reclaimed our position in the world of being a leader in opposition to unprovoked wars of aggression...time to end the insanity and stop being the country which chooses to wage war.

I like what I hear from Mr. Obama...so far.

Hillary seems to be echoing the Bush "we should spread our values at the point of a gun" rhetoric

Yes!

Which is very much your right. The point being made here, is that we need to elect a democrat, and no matter who that candidate is, there is no point in trashing them, distorting their statements, positions or policies.

"Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy." BHO on Israel

"I believe that U.S. forces are still part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goal should be to allow a limited drawdown of U.S. troops... at the same time sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing and a haven for terrorists." BHO on Iraq

Now I'm just an ordinary person too, and I fail to see any huge, profound differences in their policies.

And you can keep falsely claiming that, but in fact the UN never authorized anyone's "removal". All it says is that The Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter.” That's why even the highest legal officials in Britain doubted the legality of Bush's war.

Bush committed a crime and violated international law by attacking Iraq. Any candidate who says attacking another country is an "option" is endorsing a WAR CRIME.

PRINCIPLE VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

PRINCIPLE VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Tony Blair last night suffered a fresh blow after Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said the war in Iraq was "illegal". Speaking on the BBC World Service, Mr Annan said the war was "not in conformity" with the UN Security Council or with the UN Charter. Asked if there was legal authority for the war on Iraq, Mr Annan said: "I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the security council, with the UN charter."

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

[T]here does not appear at any point to be any blanket endorsement by the Security Council of the wide-ranging use of force against Iraq on the scale of invading and occupying the country, let alone toppling its government.

While certain aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 are remarkably vague, two things are clear. First, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must accomplish a sequence of tasks over the next few months or almost certainly face serious consequences, most likely a US-led invasion. Second, in the event of non-compliance the United States is not automatically authorized to take unilateral military action to effect regime change... No acquiescence has occurred to allow force for enforcing weapons inspections, and certainly none has developed to authorize ousting Saddam Hussein.

The pre-emptive use of military force absent an armed attack violates the plain terms of the United Nations Charter and the prevailing interpretation of those terms. Under the Charter, states may use force in self-defense if an armed attack occurs. For all other security concerns, states are to go to the Security Council.

This is a revelation. You said, "...when BOTH have the same, exact positions on the Middle East."

Please explain to me what this position is that they are BOTH in exact agreement on. I am dying to know what that policy is.

One says, ±, "Keep all options on the table, of course, but within an overall shift from a strategy of provocation and confrontation to one of negotiation." The other says, ±, "A strong Iran is a big problem, we can't let then get too strong. We'll negotiate with them to see how much we can bully them into giving up, but if it takes an attack to keep them down, that's one of the options on the table."

I wonder why you can't see any difference.

No, what is in quotation marks in the paragraphs is exactly what he said. That's why it looks like this: " ' a quote enclosed by a quote. I am quoting the newspaper article and the newspaper article is quoting BHO.

Right, he wants to negotiate first, just as Clinton does.

"Whaddya gonna do about it" is the refrain of the CRIMINAL. We already knew you were an ignorant racist. Keep it up.

Well, what makes you think that it WON'T happen if we take out civilians in Iran...?

This -- we need a TOUGH, but it doesn't matter if we have a DUMB President, regardless whether he/she is republican or democrat is maddening.

So in other words, Obama says he will not rule out military strikes in Iran. One says we must negotiate with Iran as we did the Soviet Union (although he doesn't give the Iranians at the very least the same accord that they don't want to be blown up - obviously, he thinks they don't care if they do) and Senator Clinton says we must negotiate with our enemy and does not rule out military strikes either. So both Obama and Clinton are using the same bully boy tactics, that of the threat of military strikes, if Iran doesn't do what they want it to do. They both claim that support of Israel should be our first commitment in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't care for either's policy on the Middle East because they appear to be one and the same.

Exactly. However, this is not the only issue in the coming election, which is why at this point I am leaning towards Edwards.

Clinton basically posits negotiations with Iran as a last resort before going to war.

So is there any difference if "Clinton" and "Iran" is replaced by "Bush" and "Iraq"?  I see no difference and find each position equally unacceptable. 

There will be an improvements in other policy areas in a Hillary Clinton presidency, as compared to George Bush, but when it comes to this issue of waging war in lieu of diplomacy right now I see no difference. 

You use single quotation marks to enclose a quotation within a quotation. I am quoting the newspaper and enclosed in that quote is another quote.

I gave you the source, the Chicago Tribune, with the date of the article. Why would I lie about it? I've said over and over that I don't care who wins the primaries, I care about a truthful record and especially how that record is made.

MJ, there may be a difference in their rhetoric, who they are appealing to and what political posture they are shooting for, but it doesn't tell us much about what they intend to do. I know you disagree with the contention amongst conservatives that the Left will not lay out a clear plan for the future of the mideast, but here is a great example of frustration on the left trying to decipher the tea leaves of codespeak on the left.

Here is what Hillary is saying after you pass it through the Transmogrifier:

What she really said:

"This is a worthy debate to have in our country today. There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share."

What she means:

"Worthy debate" means the same symbolic thing as my campaign gimic of a "conversation". It means this is nutty that we are campaigning two years out and we are all going to look stupid if we can't reinvent ourselves ever 6 months. "President...good faith" is code speak for Barack is not in the first family club like me. I am being diplomatic by saying the office of president is awesome and i have enough class to note that, but I am not questioning the current occupants well intentioned bumbling, just the fact that he is a bumbler. So stay tuned, I'll probably put diplomacy first like all the democrats, but my handlers and my husband tell me this two year campaign thing is nuts and I can't commit definitively on anything until I'm forced to.

What Barack says:

"...I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we've displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly...."

What he means:
Hillary has access to resources I can only dream of and I am in danger of fizzling once people lose interest in me. So I need to stand out from Hillary, steal a lot of oxygen from her unprotected left flank and build a money network quick so that when the media stops calling, I can pay for my own.

When I say all options are on the table, I am prequalifying my more liberal than Hillary statements with the caveat that I accept the premise that sometimes the military actually can be used for something, I mean I'm not nuts, ok?

Now, Hillary hints that she "probably" will talk to Iran and Syria, but I am going to make it sound like I am guarenteeing that I will have talks. I am using the word agressively pursuing diplomacy because it even further makes it sound like I am going to try harder than hillary to find a peaceful solution, so if you are against the war, this "aggresive diplomacy" phrase makes it sound like we are storming the gates for peace.

When I say "blundering in Iraq...Iran is the big winner" Lets make it clear Bush messed up, but I was no where near the scene of the crime. Hillary has been fooled by Bush, she has been fooled by her husband, she is easily fooled and she carries the blame too, but not me. A vote for me is a new start. In the end Hill and I will probably reinterpret what we say here today and when that day comes, no one will remember and we will probably have about the same approach to foreign policy which is to lick our finger and stick it in the air, but for now neither of us want to lay out any broad or definitive approach to the mideast, because that place is a nuthouse and anything can happen over there from one week to the next, I mean have you seen that stuff on TV.

So as long as she is vague, I'm not sticking my neck out there either unless a slightly provocative statement gets me face time. We are going to keep you guessing and let the media falsely interpret our words in flashy anti-Bush sound bites that never point out our contradictions. Hopefully people like MJ Rosenberg will put some pressure on Hillary to respond to the left.

You sound like Chris Mathews. You're the one hamstrung by gender stereotyping. She doesn't have to "prove she has a pair of testicles" you think she does, and so everything she says is coloured by your gender bias. According to you, any woman who makes strong statements in regard to foreign policy or national defense has to prove she's just like a man.

We didn't "lose" the war in Iraq because we failed to execute it properly, we failed because we started a predatory war for no reason other than we could.

In my opinion, they're both wrong - we can't force Iran not to produce nuclear weapons anymore than they can force us not to.

Well then by all means, vote for the republican. And exactly where did Clinton posit negotiations as a last resort? The last resort she posits is force. "Engaging the enemy in talks" is hardly a call to warfare and it is a smarter strategy than to refuse to negotiate.

Frankly I see no difference between Obama and Clinton's positions on the Middle East.

If you prefer a republican president to Clinton, be my guest - like the fools who "preferred" Nader to Gore you'll only be helping the republicans to another term.

Got it and likewise.

Not casting a vote is as egregious as voting for a republican. Once again, Clinton does not advocate wars of adventure. Never once has she said she does. Not one democratic candidate has so far said anything remotely like that. ALL candidates have stated that we must negotiate with Iran.

She doesn't have to "prove she has a pair of testicles" you think she does, and so everything she says is coloured by your gender bias. According to you, any woman who makes strong statements in regard to foreign policy or national defense has to prove she's just like a man.

Wrong. This is no Chris Matthews moment.  I have a lifetime of experience. It is a known fact by all women. Even Hillary acknowledges this. Why else is it that she and most of the other women burst out laughing when the question was posed 'what in her bkgrd gives her experience with evil men?" Surely, you are not trying to assert that there is no societal gender bias or glass ceiling in corporate America, are you? The power structure in our society is one based on male dominance and male  power dynamic, not women. Women wield power totally different from men and that difference is neither valued nor appreciated. Instead 'successful' women have to demonstrate they can wield power based on the male power dynamic  in order to be viewed as peers  particularly when it comes to competing for positions of authority or executive judgement, whether it is academia, science, corporate or political office.

Perhaps, this is simply another subtle difference you do not discern between what is stated and what is meant. sigh

We didn't "lose" the war in Iraq because we failed to execute it properly, we failed because we started a predatory war for no reason other than we could.

Sorry, you are wrong again.  We did lose due to piss poor execution. In fact that is why it is  considered neither a loss  ( we did not get beat)or win (we have no achievable goal) status but rather abject failure.  Once the decision to go to war was made, (no matter how phucked up that was), once we were there it was about execution and it has been a collosal incompetent failure from the moment too few American troops set foot on that soil, to secure the peace,  under the false premise of looking for WMD's. Even the generals acknowledge that.

Barack knew all this before we went to war and stated it. He clearly understood the risks and costs of a war with a undetermined goal for undetermined length of time and inadequate resources to do the job.

Again it is about judgement.

I love the fact that The Criminal boss of the corrupted UN, that took bribes from Saddam in the greatest bribery scandal of all time is your keynote speaker on International law.

We have covered this before. The UNSC was on the take. The French for one were completely bought off. Chiracs chief of staff was being bribed by Saddam. The head of Chirac's political party was receiving bribes, and numerous French companies that can't sustain themselves other wise were getting rich on Saddam's Oil for food bribes. Kofi's Family was taking bribes from Saddam. I guess if Al Capone bribes a judge to say 2+2 equals 5, you'd believe it.

The Oil for food bribery scandal is a how to manual on how a dictator can avoid military punishment, opt for sanctions, use them to subvert the UN and then use them against the coalition that is holding you to the original sanctions. Nice job Hass.

You are being dishonest with your links. 1441 doesn't say that. that is your liberal authors misinterpreation and you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Perle never said the war was illegal. You are trying to mislead people there as well.

The UN was part of Saddam's Criminal enterprise and by going to war, Bush cut off their bribes and forced them to Clean up and send your criminal buddy Kofi Anan packing.

You don't understand law any more than you could recognize a criminal. In fact you praise the criminals. Your point is even more worthless now, Hass.

Wait a second here. This thread is M.J. Rosenberg's response to a column by Garance Franke-Ruta (at TAPPED). (M.J. I do salute you for responding.) But not one of you, not one of the 62 comments here, shows any evidence of reading her column. You're all just tweedling your own little tweedles. What's lost is that Garance emphacized the CONTEXT of Clinton's remarks:

"Clinton (like Obama) ... wants to negotiate with Iran and Syria -- and she even had the balls to say that directly at an AIPAC dinner, to an audience that she knew would be hostile to this position."

Clinton was very aware that almost everyone in her audience was inimical to the idea of negotiating with Iran. Yet she pushed it on them anyway, in the face of their hostility. And she even tried to convince them of the wisdom of negotiations, saying " I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us."

Take her words out of context, and it sounds like "negotiations with Iran are a last resort before going to war." Consider the context, and it is clear that Clinton is trying to find common ground among our society's various factions. That is a good thing.

In Reverse order. Whether I am being disrespectful to HillBill or not, if you are implying that a person owes them respect regarding expressing who is the stronger partner on their team, I think you will have a difficult time supporting this contention.

They do have their own baggage and so does Rudy and McCain and Obama. When they offer a job application to become my President, they run their baggage through the xray machine and take off their shoes. If they can't handle that, look for another job. Regarding Cigars? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

When you mention the electoral college. No serious person really believes that. Some on the left brought it up after 2000, because the Liberal strongholds are in 4 basic areas. SF metro, LA Metro, Chicago Metro, and the area that is a two hour radius around New york. The rest of America is red. And the Electoral College as argued in the Federalist papers was put in place for a number of very specific reasons intended to short circuit potential plans to rig the system. Trying to rig the system by oversample Urban Calif./Chic/NY at the expense of other Americans is exactly the kind of scam they wanted to foil. Someday the advantage of the EC will slant the other way and Dems will embrace it like a teddy bear. Its not going anywhere.

Nixon beat JFK in the electoral college and the popular vote. Many on the left proudly tell how Kennedy was so wily and clever to rig the electoral college to steal the election, well we know the story and if anybody disputes that, one thing is not in dispute and that is Nixon did receive more popular votes. Using the Gore argument, JFK would have not taken office.

The Constitution is nothing but ways to hobble the government from becoming a mobocracy. Justices protect the long memory of the Constitution, the House is supposed to be the hot headed laboratory of part time represntatives before they return to their farms and shops back home. The Senate was supposed to be the cooling off place for a class of political experts that are safe from facing the voters for 6 years. The President every 4, but he draws more pressure because of his singular position, but also is commander in chief during times of war. They didn't want internet polling for direct democracy and the states that do have referendums instantly go to court when the laws pass causing Judges to become lawmakers.

I knew you didn't include Jail in the free speech example, but the threat of jail is inherently included. If you are fined for standing in a public park for spending more than your alotted time voicing your approval for your candidate, then the implication is that the state will fine you and bleed you dry until you give up, or else they physically lock you up. Free Speech or not what you call the "cooperation" of others is coercion focused on the free expression of political speech.

Back to the Kennedy Nixon story, there are extremely cordial letters between the two of them staying in touch to work out their ongoing personal agreement to voluntarily limit their spending. We have chosen to be less civil and laws can not fix that.

And that is exactly what Chris Mathews said, thanks for making my point about gender bias. Another indication of your inability to overcome your bias and stereotyping - if that's your objection, think about all the bias and stereotyping that is occupying the press about whether Obama "is black enough" to win the vote of African American voters or whether America is "ready for a black president."

I don't recall the soviets attacking the US with nukes during Carter's administration. Of course I might be wrong. Maybe the Soviets had a different view of Jimmy than you.

Like I said, an H-Bomb is like no other weapon. I have a hunch Terhan wouldn't be stupid enough to arm a terrorist group with a bomb. The risks for them would just be too great for them to contemplate.

If you are worried about terrorist bombs you should be concerned about weapons built by the old soviet union floating around some of the outlying republics falling into terrorist hands.

Ron Byers

Take her words out of context, and it sounds like "negotiations with Iran are a last resort before going to war." Consider the context, and it is clear that Clinton is trying to find common ground among our society's various factions. That is a good thing.

I think this is a good point.  Clinton should be commended for displeasing AIPAC.  On the other hand, what was the alternative?  Her comments are echoing the position of the Iraq Study Group, not the Daily Kos.  The AIPAC hissing says more about AIPAC then it does about Hillary's position.

Anyway, I think Obama's statement on Iran and Syria stands out because it's the right position.  Hillary hasn't quite gotten there yet.  I am confident that she'll start moving left on a lot of issues fairly soon.  I think she's discovering that Democratic primary voters are closer to Daily Kos than AIPAC whether she likes it or not.  She needs to go left if she wants to win.

Wasn't the Fairness Doctrine in place during Nixon/Kennedy?

Being worried about mobocracy is a definition of belonging to the Republic Party (couldn't resist the name change, sorry). I am in fact sympathetic to restraints on direct democracy, as long as they can be shed in case of need. So I have no major beef with either the Electoral College or the Senate.

But as I point out, if a leader gets too far away from public opinion he is asking for trouble. Same applies to the Court and the Legislature.

Even though some felt the Constitution was sufficient in protecting inalienable rights, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of assembly.

I think her AIPAC speech was extremely neocon, the only problem being that the audience obviously didn't think it was neocon enough.

With regards to her moving away from AIPAC's militarist regime-change position, I think it's far too late for that (not sure she wants to either!) as they have poured MILLIONS into both her Senate campaign and Presidential campaign. When you are dealing in the millions there are obviously going to be some strings attached.

Follow the money! Her backers are corporate and neocon.

He has the best interest of the nation at heart. Hillary is speaking to warhawks and the pro-Israel lobby.

I believe that is a very critical distinction.  I look at whether the primary focus is on defending Americans.  Defense of any other nation is always optional.   If you don't elect someone who always keeps their eyes on the just who they are elected to defend, you wind up with fiascos like the Bay of Pigs and the war in Iraq.   

Thanks Lally. I suspected that there was a lack of full disclosure in terms of context, given the core basis of our argument being about subtle differences being significant. Thanks again.

With regards to her moving away from AIPAC's militarist regime-change position, I think it's far too late for that (not sure she wants to either!) as they have poured MILLIONS into both her Senate campaign and Presidential campaign.

While this all may be true, here's the thing: if she doesn't move left, she can't win.  Democratic voters hate the Iraq war (approval rate among Dems: 10%).   Heck, 63% of the entire country thinks Congress should set a withdrawal date.   If candidates want any shot at all of winning, a full and complete withdrawal from Iraq will need to be a central plank in their platform.  A similarly liberal position will be needed on Iran. I don't understand why people aren't getting this.  In six months, even a hint of being pro-war will destroy the candidate's chances.   The Democratic base is pissed.  Unbelievably pissed.  It is going to demand absolute and uncompromising fealty on Iraq (and to the extent a second war in imminent, Iran).

Hillary's problem is that she's still afraid of the right wing attacks.  She doesn't seem to realize that most Democratic voters don't care about the rightwing critiques.  But she will catch on.  She has to.  After all, Obama announced his withdrawal plan on January 31st.  At that time, he trailed Hillary 43% to 15% in Fox's January 30-31 poll. In Rasmussen's February 12th poll he only trailed Hillary 28% to 23%.  Trust me, she noticed.

Go left and you get the base.  Get the base and you win the primary.  Organization...money...who cares?  You need votes to win.  All the ads in the world won't save you if you're wrong on the war.

I should have been more clear Howard. The romantic story of the crisis usually fails to explain how both the Presidents staff and the Commanders communicated poorly and ignored the responsibilities and expectations of the other. Both Kennedy brothers later would characterize the Joint Chiefs as nutcases, but McNamara later admitted that much of the seemingly provocative actions by the Commanders were a result of direct orders, standing orders or Standard operating procedure(SOP), or a failure of the Presidents staff to understand the result of their recommendations.

There were actually several confrontations between Anderson and McNamara and Several commanders operating under standing orders or Standard operating procedure(SOP) were furious when they were countermanded at critical moments. One example is when an agreement in JCS had been made that when a plane is shot down, an immediate counterstrike on the SAM site would occur. When a plane did get shot down, Lemay gave the order and the White house had it recalled. Lemay was furious.

One of the incidents regarding the Quarantine had to do with the tracking of the Sub you mentioned and a conflict between Anderson and McNamara who by all accounts was micromanaging the most minor details. In my previous summary I may have blended separate events, but here is the first one I had in mind. According to a book I read by Graham Allison on the crisis, Kennedy agreed to the blockade standard operating procedures and then at the last minute (the day of or day before) the blockade was to begin, Kennedy on advice from a British ambassador told Anderson to pull the arc of the blockade in close enough to Cuba to give Kruschev more time to back down. Anderson resisted adamantly. The argument to Kennedy and McNamara that SOP for a blockade is that it is an aggressive act and when a blockade is in place and then pulled back it in fact is no longer a blockade it is considered a sign of weakness and amongst Naval commanders is major and significant movement that entails a whole number of symbolic implications. Kennedy seemed to brush it off in favor of buying time to figure out what to do. Kennedy was sending the message to the Soviets that he was blinking. According to Allison, Anderson reluctantly agreed, but in fact did not move the blockade apparently increasing the chances of a confrontation. But this may have turned out to be the right move according to some, because it instilled the firmness of the quarentine from the outset.

"..."Upon hearing this information, it was Defense Secretary McNamara’s turn to become furious. He called it an irresponsible and unordered provocation. Admiral Anderson replied that it was standard naval procedure in case of a blockade. McNamara did not accept this as a valid argument (Brugioni, 1990: 415-417)...."

So the Quarantine was not removed, it was requested to be withdrawn within the fighter range of Cuba and Andrews chose to disobey based on the field soldiers prerogotive (right or wrong) that disobeying a direct order that conflicts with SOP and could be deemed as in conflict with more central battle orders of the overall mission is your duty.

In answer to your question about what happened to Anderson. Months later McNamara personally delivered the message to Anderson that his two year stint on the JCS would not be renewed. In essence, He was fired. McNamara went on to be one of the most infamous micromanagers of all time.

Another, near miss was a policy that Kennedy developed for signaling Russian subs to surface. They would drop training grenades, a type of depth charge, that were believed to be less than lethal, but in recently declassified Soviet documents, it turns out that the Russian commander was becoming so rattled by the near misses that he had concerns about his special orders. Unbeknownst to the Americans above, he had nuclear tipped torpedoes and was given "standing orders" that if he was hulled (a hull breach) he was to launch the torpedoes. So while Kennedy was criticizing Lemay for wanting to retaliate on a SAM site, on Kennedy's orders they were backing the soviet sub commander into a corner with impacts that were like being in a steel drum and banged with a "sledge hammer".

Also on standing orders that should have been rescinded during the crisis. An ICBM test missile was fired from Vandenberg on a routine test at the height of the crisis not considering that the USSR would have no choice but to believe they were under attack.

As my statement said, I believe Kennedy did well and set the stage for future negotiations, but the myth that he stared down the Russians and gave up nothing and they backed down is a romantic notion. He did give up Turkey, so we started out with Turkey and they introduced Cuba and won the concession of a removal in Turkey.

I should have clarified above, Kruschev believed JFK to be weak, he was wrong. They came away believing that if Kennedy would respond like this Nixon would be even more harsh. On the other hand Kennedy came across as some what inconsistent and reckless, which rather than encouraging the Soviets actually scared them. If we really want to give Kennedy points, we might wonder if at least some of the crazy like a fox, was by design. Cowboy Kennedy, lol.

Kennedy's motives for initiating the US part in the confrontation are fascinating looks into the Cold war mind set. His innaugural on "Bear any burden, support any friend, etc...", his pre-crisis discussions about pre-emption, UN reaction, sovereignity, showing our opponents our zero-tolerance in the face of threats, our willingness to risk it all if need be to secure our homeland, willingness to fire first. Even the desire to keep Turkey secret, not out of shame, but as a deterrent to our enemies and encouragemnent to our allies. One can hardly imagine Jimmy Carter being allowed in that room. It seems now days, Uncle Sam beating his own bare back with chains in the halls of the UN is the only way to satiate some American's angst over being the world's only super power.

In Kennedy's defense again, prior to the hotline and amidst Arguments from commanders in the field that they not be asked to wait for Presidential orders to fire missiles from Italy on the Soviets if fired upon, it is hard to imagine how new this type of cold war confrontation was at the time and as we are always fighting the new wars through the imperfect prism of the last, Kennedy and his Joint Chiefs learned valuable lessons that they used to add failsafes for future Cold War conflicts.

Here is one link that covers in part some of what I remember from Allison's book.
Link

In todays political atmosphere Kennedy would have been considered a pre-emptive attack american terrorist and saber rattler that violated international law rather than waiting to be fired upon. Impeachment would have been a given in todays inquisitorial and partisan political world. Which is why it baffles conservatives how some can rightfully support Kennedy's staunch defense of Liberty and his intense conviction to demonstrate American will to our enemies, but then in modern times (Carter to present) that philosophy is almost non existent.

When I started getting involved in Navy C3I around 1970, there were still a lot of veterans of the Crisis around, and a lot of well, short-of-war stories. Even outside the inside, as it were, there has been an increasing number of books, declassified documents, and other information that gave insights into the friction between White House and JCS that you describe. I'm quite familiar with what happened to Anderson, as I worked as a contractor in the Naval Command Systems Support Activity branch in direct support of Flag Plot. Anderson, IIRC, was offered an ambassadorship to leave early, but suggested where they could stick the proposed credentials.

Two books that cover much more than the Crisis alone: Roger Hilsman's To Move a Nation, who, IIRC, was head of INR at the time (and a WWII guerilla), was a relatively early one, and indeed discussed the intelligence method of "crateology" that I didn't think should have been disclosed. Dino Brugioni's Eyeball to Eyeball is the definitive story of US photoreconnaissance; the title refers to Khruschev and Kennedy. Brugioni, now retired, promotes the use of declassified photographs in historical research. I had him as guest speaker for the Northern Virginia Photographic Society, and the pleasure of having dinner with him, discussing how we got the first hard photographs of Auschwitz.

Apropos of what you say about routine things that should have been cancelled, a U-2 out of Alaska, presumably on a SIGINT mission, accidentally overflew the USSR frontier in the middle of the Crisis. Kennedy, when told, sort of grinned and said "Some SOB never gets the word, do they?"

Quite a bit of Cuban crisis SIGINT is online at nsa.gov.

I don't see the Jupiters (Turkey and Italy; I don't remember if they were out of the UK by then) as a sign of weakness, but as a bargaining chip of obsolete missiles that were planned to be withdrawn fairly soon anyway. They were nowhere near as potent as the GLCMs and Pershing IIs used as bargaining chips years later.

Kennedy was a man for his time. I suspect, had he lived, his experiences with the Bay of Pigs and with the Cuban Crisis would have tempered his response to Vietnam's more than LBJ's. Then again, JFK didn't have as much ego need to dominate everyone as did LBJ.

His brinksmanship was probably necessary regarding the USSR, but it was calculated against a real threat to the continental US, not a yet-to-develop Iranian nuclear threat that is even a future threat to anyone but Israel.

Much as I hate to have anything nice to say about Cheney, Cheney, as opposed to McNamara, recognized that there were things he could learn. As SecDef, Cheney ordered the JCS to run a mini-war-college for him, and probably did a better job than Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld would have reached his level of competence as a special deputy for force transformation. Again not necessarily liking to admit it, I cannot fault Rumsfeld's physical courage, as opposed to responsibility, when his urge, on 9/11, was to run to the crash site and help as one more pair of hands.

While you do respect Kennedy, I still feel that your dislike of Carter and Clinton makes you look for problems. In general, I consider Carter's presidency a low point, but it's little known that he and Schlesinger, in PD59, for the first time addressed nuclear warfighting rather than mostly spasm war.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When one considers that buidling a functioning nuke is a huge national achievement it is beyond belief that any state would give one to even their closest ally.

They're the family jewels (family atomics). The only escape worry is if a government falls.

I often feel there is way too much handwringing over nuclear weapons. One weapon, or even a few, is not the end of the world, (maybe a city). Only the superpowers can threaten that result. And only one has ever used them. Their possession does seem to concentrate the mind, like an impending hanging.

You may have noticed the quote I included was from the brugioni book. I agree regarding the Jupiters, but again, the key is not whether we needed them, especially with sub based missiles covering from the medeteranean, but that the Soviets might consider it brinkmanship. You are right though , no great loss there.

I think you might imagine I am looking for more problems with Clinton than Carter, but they don't compare well in that regard. Carter had some hold overs from the Scoop Jackson days that helped keep him on track, but his squabbles between Vance and Zbig were unnerving. When you say Kennedy was a man for his times, thats because he rose to the occasion, Carter for me fell down at every challenge and even gave away things that were not even on the table. The recent efforts to rehabilitate his legacy are really kind of sad to me. Clinton, I think showed more creativity in foreign policy than Carter, but at times seemed to apply the theory that if it was relatively risk free in the short term, do it, if it was risky and could become a long running problem, call for a consensus.

I don't think he intentionally woke up and attempted to create problems in foreign policy, nor do I think he was in general ill equipped, I just think his challenge as a President was to catch the ball as the cold war ended. I think he put a lot of things off and they piled up. I obviously supported him during Desert Fox, and his decision to attack after Saddam sent terrorists to assasinate President Bush. His handling of the Irish deserves credit.

Regarding your mention of Cheney and Rumsfeld. A friend of mine that spent a lot of time around the two in the 70s, once told me, "I know this guy who is the smartest and most hard working guy I know, he could be president someday, his name is Donald Rumsfeld". He said if not Rumsfeld then Richard Cheney. I think they were in their late 30s then. You may remember I mentioned congressman Rumsfeld was the leading advocate of ending the draft in the 70s along with Milton Friedman.

I not only respect Kennedy for his foreign policy, but his choice of Walter Heller that prompted him to cut taxes to spur the boom of the 1960s was a model for the supplysiders of the 80s.

Forgive me Howard if my admiration for certain Democrats is usually limited to their more conservative traits, especially from the 50s and 60s, but I think you will understand. I'll try to remain open minded. Thanks for your thoughtful post and your personal experiences as well.

Your link takes one to Brookings not to AIPAC. Is that an error? In reading the AIPAC website it seems that they are tentantively supportive of the U.S. talking to Iran. They warn that Iran has been less than honest in keeping to their agreements.

Only at a place like TPMCafe could selling out an ally be seen as conservative policy. Hillary has to show that she is tough in protecting American and America's interests and is prepared to engage anyone in the the world whether Syria, North Korea or Cuba. She also has to indicate that she can reach out to the new leader of Russia and the growing nations of India and China.

In order to do all of the above she probably needs to read sites like TPMCafe and do the opposite. It is a shame but if she follows the course here, we may end up with a Republican to follow Bush.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

.> Now, if we could just get an alliance
> with the Iraqi Fremen...

I thought that Herbert's Fremen were based on the Shiites?

sPh

as I recall, Bush also said and said often that war with Iraq was a last resort. You probably saw right thru his rhetoric because you sure are no fool. And Hillary. She's different and you know that? oh right, you sure are no fool.

Actually BevD I am glad you brought up not voting and since you seem so cocksure of yourself it brings the issue upfront. The issue of voting when the choices are imperfect is not the easy issue that you and others who are so smug and sure of themselves seem to think. I often wonder how a shit like Bush can get elected and how that reflects on this country and its people. But I understand the deep disgust that many on the left feel for the Democratic Party and many of its arrogant, self-important supporters feel when they mouth off at the left for not supporting the greater evil, i.e. the Republicans. I guess as my experience during Vietnam War showed, Democrats are quite capable of being as assinine, insensitive and repulsive as Republicans. After all, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Daley were all Democrats; most neocons came out of the Democratic Party; and Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman have recently crawled out from under the rock you seem so proud of. Why don't you tell us who you would vgote for: Lieberman or Hagel? Seriously. You say any Dem is preferable to a Republican. No ifs, ands, or buts. You know so very much and certainly tell all the fools off. The reason the Dems lost the Nader vote is that the Dems did not sufficiently appeal to those voters; BevD willing to vote for any dreck that has a D in front of its name is responsible for that and for the characters that parade as Demnocratic candidates and do not care about the disaster in Iraq, war with Iran, our sick, and poor, human rights, global warming, Katrina... If you want more left/progressives to support the Democratic Party (you possibly do not care for the fool vote. presumably calling people fools will get them to flock to your party. a new campaign tactic perefected by the know-it-all center), then get candidates (unlike Clinton) who care enough about these to campaign and fight for them; if not try to win enough conservative Dems to make up for the loss...the Lieberman model that you are so pleased with.,

With the rep for elusiveness I woud  suggest Tuareg as Fremen model.

Paul is Greenmantle + drugs.

Aha! By Jove, I think you've done it! The Tuareg are unusual for having dark blue eyes...and the eyes of those who use the Spice...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Shimmyin' Shai-Hulud, maybe it should be Berbers, who I thought were the blue-eyes.

Have you read any Buchan?

By upbeat on outsourcing, did you mean she is in favor of it, or thinks it won't be a problem.

Were she the Democratic nominee, I'd be reluctant. As you suggest, I don't hear a coherent foreign policy, much less a creative one.

My biggest concern is that I have not seen her be able to build consensus and be inclusive. Bill Clinton's acceptance speech at the Convention was a tribute to big-tent inclusion, but her work on the healthcare plan doomed it with style of closed meetings and the sense of the (hopefully smoke-free, given the context) back room. The plan had some fundamental errors, but might have been fixable if it had someone that built a groundswell for it.

Were I to advise her, I'd remind her of LBJ, master of the Senate. She might well be able to build that role, as she does seem to be able to form working groups in an elitist context. LBJ was a failure as President because he took too many Senate techniques to the White House, as well as several heavy-duty trucks carrying his ego in sections.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It might be interesting, then, given her interest in healthcare, to inquire how she sees enforcing HIPAA health privacy laws when the information is being handled in another country. There already have been some blackmail attempts, by offshore contractors, to release protected health information unless a billing dispute is settled in their favor.

A minimum answer might be that to offshore a job that involves information protected by US privacy and non-military security laws, the country to which the job is offshored has to demonstrate it has laws, and enforcement, of privacy regulations at least as stringent as the corresponding US legislation. This applies to financial as well as medical legislation. In some case, that would require independent audit.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*