CNN/Opinion Polls? I don't trust CNN anymore, they have done their best to crown Hillary Clinton, President of the United States.

I'm sure Ted Turner is wondering what happened to his Network.

I agree it's unexpected, it was a startling number, I thought

Now I understand how we got Bush over Gore in 2000.

Just use the corporate media to create whatever perception among the proletariat you want.

I believe people think Hillary will implement different FP and domestic policies. Hillary haters think she will keep doing the same things bush and cheney have been doing since 2001 which is absurd. Obama of course will implement different policies too but he lacks the gravitas.

Oh, but even the quickest glance at the available data will show that the Proletariat is much less GOP than the upper class. It was the "ignorant, foolish" proletariat who was most against this war (just as they were during Vietnam).

We got Bush over Gore in 2000 because Bush was saying that we need to come together to solve problems. That he wanted to unite us, not divide us. Sound familiar? I'm sure you'll forgive the proletariat if they aren't jumping to endorse a newcomer who says the same thing...

What I find hilarious is the notion that Bill Clinton sold out the Party to corporatists. He lost Congress because he was adamant about raising taxes on top marginal rates and instituting the assault weapons ban. Oh yeah, and he wanted to integrate gays in the military. And health-care was stymied on purely political grounds, but he tried to get UHC anyway.

If only all politicians were as willing to "sell out" for such horrible causes.

I'd find your pragmatic claim more believable if she had actually achieved anything sweeping in the last 8 years. She botched health care, and she's gone in baby steps ever since.

What has Hillary ever done to demonstrate her effectiveness? It's thrown out there as if it's just known, which is so bizarre to me.

Well, in the absence of the actual data--which have not yet been released by good ol' CNN--I'd guess, emphasis on "guess" that its this simple: most Dems polled think Hillary is more likely to win the nomination, and hence the election, than Obama, ergo she's the one most likely to bring about change.

/rant on.

And, btw, this habit MSM outlets have of releasing a story about their organization's shiny new poll but not releasing the actual data and questionnaire for several hours drive me bats**t crazy. (Hmmm, it's almost as if they didn't want bloggers fact-checking them in real time.)

Until you can see the data and the questions, a certain amount of caution is called for when reporting on MSM reports about their unreleased polls. Some of them play it straight when they write these stories, others can't resist the temptation to cherry pick whatever numbers support the Official MSM Narrative, and still others are just so dumb they think a standard deviation has to do with interns and a confidence interval is a feature of their anti-perspirant.

Caution is especially wise when the reporting is done by CNN, the "if we find out you have a brain and you've been using it, you're fired!" news network.

/rant off.

If only all politicians were as willing to "sell out" for such horrible causes.

Bill Clinton helped to make many of the Republicans' favorite ideas into law and they (the Repubs) hated him for it...

"she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry"

This factoid (factoid is a "fact" taken out of context) gets quoted ad infinitum, as if it is supposed to mean that HRC is now a captive of the evil health insurance industry. Somehow all of those doctors (and yes, the majority of her donations are from individual doctors) are conspiring to prevent healthcare reform.

If you think it is that simple (politics as soap opera) consider that:
** The number 2 Dem in donations is Ted Kennedy (notorious paleoconservative)
** Maybe all of those doctors are donating AGAINST the current insurer-run system. Ever hear a doctor complain about this?
** The pragmatic and nefarious healthcare industry doesn't look so bright giving TOP dollar to Santorum, didn't get much bang for their bucks there, did they?

[all info from the Hernandez/Pear article]

It's obvious that the lobbyists, and the entrenched corporate interests they represent--y'know, the people who have helped give us our perfectly functional healthcare system, fully rational and efficient military procurement budget, and ever-thoughtful and earth-friendly environmental posture--view her as effective.

The question is whether that word means the same thing to them as it should to most of us who just want a competent government that reflects our shared values.

Oh, I get it: she's sort of our Bush.

No, you did NOT get it. Au contraire, she has not been given a pass for anything she's ever tried to do (good or bad), even by her own side! She has always been harshly crticized and has had her motivation constrantly questioned every step of the way. Therefore, whenever real people see her in debates and things, and see a real person and none of the MSM's caricature, they are surprised and develop a more tolerant view of her.

Does this sound like what Bush got from the MSM and wingnuts? Bush lied, cheated, took us to war, spit on our collective face, revoked habeas corpus, shredded the Constitution and... he got re-elected!! The "soft bigotry of low expectation" ain't what I was referring to in regard HRC. Au contraire!

Try again but please think harder this time...

It wasn't the proletariat who did us in: a majority voted for Gore despite the dearth of sound information in much of the media.

Despite the GIGO problem in information flow, the people can be trusted more than that. It's called democracy.

GIGO problem should be a little better in one way since the Internet removes some of the filters. Worse in another since people are tempted to listen only to those who agree with them.

Hillary is in a 'dead-heat' with Obama in the primaries that count - those through February 5th.

This is the only poll that matters because the nominee will be chosen from these states.

But Hillary is doing markedly better than Obama -- 59% to 9% -- on the question of who's seen to have more of the right experience to be President, a key Hillary campaign argument.

This 'experience' thing is a fraud perpetrated by Hillary.

There is no such thing as a 'safe' tactical nuclear weapon, so 'experience' should have taught Hillary that you have to take these weapons off the table because you cannot use these or any other nuclear weapons against small terror cells without killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and environmental damage for decades.

Hillary' 'experience' should have also taught her that the president must even talk to the leader of the Hutus if he/she thought it would prevent the slaughter of more Tutsis.

Who cares what a dictator puts in his state-controlled newspapers. Such propaganda cannot possibly outweigh serious interests and issues of concern to America and the world.

Hillary's experience in foreign affairs is therefore worthless, as she is unable to make the responsible and correct decisions in foreign policy matters.

Yep, actual data.....hmmm, by the Opinion Research Corporation which is., as of 12-04-06, wholly owned by InFoUSA, which is wholly controlled by CEO Vinod Gupta, who is in trouble with his shareholders for lavishing the Clintons with private jets, vacation spots, $300,000 fees to Bill Clinton, and so forth [I believe he has even named buildings he financed in India for each of the Clintons].....yes, I would agree that we at least need to see the actual data.......before swallowing the results of this polling of less than 500 people.

Greg,

It't not really surprising if you look at it in terms of "ability" to bring about change. A person who knows the system well is better able to change it than someone new and naive about how things work. In a 2000 interview Hillary blamed her "political naivete" for the failure of health care reform. In 1994 she just didn't know how Washington worked.

You're a bundle of contradictions. I will take your word for it that the working class was more opposed to the Iraq war than the middle to upper classes. So why isn't Obama the guy more in sync with the proletariat?

Duplicate.

Cheney was the epitome of gravitas. He had so much of it during both the 2000 and 2004 debates that the press compared him to Jupiter and thought that soon he would start acquiring orbiting moons. He sounded so confident and knowledgeable, and he was just plain goddamn wrong. Hillary, to be sure, always sounds like she knows what she's talking about -- and she will be a better general election campaign than I had expected four months ago -- but what she says is often left uninspected by the MSM with regard to substance. The press in this way can be fooled by the same irrational things that ordinary voters can be fooled by: if someone like Cheney or Hillary knows the jargon of "serious" Washington "analysis," and is effortless at deploying that jargon, the press often gets hypnotized the superficial appearance of high seriousness and does not investigate the substance. Before I get assaulted, I am not calling Hillary a policy equivalent of Cheney at all. I will vote for her if she (gulp) wins the nomination; I'm just saying that seriousness/gravitas if often just a matter of figuring out the conventional Washington press corps way of framing an issue.

Not to be a broken record, but when did Hillary then apply the supposed lessons she learned and accomplish something by using her newfound skills? For her to plead naivete in 1994 and wisdom now is rather strange, since, if you credit Bill Bradley's version of events, Hillary in 1994 fancied herself as someone who was not naive at all but a hard-nosed power politician. Thus, she kept key Congressional leaders out of her planning, not because of any idealistic notion about secrecy, but because she thought this was the hardnosed "effective" way to proceed. She told those who wanted to make amendments to her plan that she would "demonize" those who were not with her. That's not a mistake of naivete. it's a mistake driven by a false sense that you know how to move the levers of power.

"This 'experience' thing is a fraud perpetrated by Hillary."

Yes that's right 59% are morons and you are part of that elite group that knows better. I'm guessing you're one of that super elite 9%.

Oh stop it with the "MSM made people dislike Hillary" crap. It is particularly insulting to the people who read and comment on this site, who frequently disagree with the MSM's take on things. I and others who don't like Hillary disagree with much of the MSM conventional wisdom. I opposed the war in Iraq, most notably.

Oh, yeah, the MSM is just oozing with love for HRC, and, FYI, I had vociferously opposed the invasion. So what is your point?

The truth is that the MSM has for months now given ZERO scrutiny to Hillary Clinton. ZERO. It is obvious that the MSM has looked back at the right-wing falsehoods about Hillary from the 1990s and concluded that, because she was wrongly accused by the right back then, she deserves a reprieve from the more recent criticisms -- even though in true MSM form the new criticisms have come from her left.

The MSM mantra has been to give her high marks on her admittedly polished debate performances in most of the debates, but without scrutinizing the substance of her answers or judging others by the same criteria. I am sorry, but if Obama had said at a debate that "Sometimes a President cannot say what he thinks," and then got roundly booed by an important audience (here, labor), that would have been replayed endlessly as a rookie mistake, a political tin ear, or some other such nonsense. Yet that ridiculous -- and imperious -- Hillaryism got barely any play at all!

Aha! The thesis emerges: HRC is the MSM's darling, getting a pass for 'gaffes' more damning than those for which they have cruficied Obama. My argument, ladies and gentlemen, has been turned on its head. A political 'judo' move to preempt my position...

You ask: "What has Hillary done to YOU" to make you dislike her?" I'll answer it, but it's the wrong question as I'll explain in a moment. Here's the answer to what has she done to ME: Other than insult my intelligence by repeatedly stating a war she authorized was not "her" war but solely George Bush's war -- even I though we all know (yes you too) that she would have patronizingly taken credit for that vote as against an anti-war rival had the Iraq war gone well -- nothing. She's been just fine for people like me. I am basically a secure upper middle class professional who has luckily not needed a lot of help from Congress in the last eight years.

It will come as shock to you that Hillary could have cast a 'ney' vote and the AUMF bill would have passed. But ultimately, it is Bush who launched the war and made a mess of it. I do not think that you would have been as vociferous in recommending that HRC be awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom if somehow, GWB had managed to wage this war billiantly and peace had broken out all around the region. Bush would have claimed all the credit and the MSM would have declared him the best POTUS ever. Now, with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight, you are ranting and pontificating about a bill that better than 80% of the Congress (50%+ of the Senate Democrats) had voted for, and then are just singling out one person from the lot to dislike and cruficy for it. As for your social status, it sounds like we are at just about the same level but why don't I feel the animosity toward anyone in Congress about that vote? Your ONE reason for disliking HRC is her 'yea' AUMF bill vote, which puts you out there in fringe left field... Most people who are closer to the center do not go ballistic because of this vote. Fortunately, most people are in the center so that your apoplexy about that vote is largely irrelevant, as the polls have indicated time and again. Most normal people just don't give a damn.

But since when is that the test? The test is, with all respect, what has she -- despite her enormously inflated sense of herself and her leadership abilities --accomplished that is good for the progressive agenda. Tick tock tick tock tick tock.... Oh yeah. Nothing. Health care. She failed. Iraq: Oops she did it again, and exercised poor judgment. Seriously, what on earth has she accomplished?

If that is your yardstick then apply it uniformly across the board and tell me what in the other candidates' records distingishes them from the others. On the basis of raw experience, none of the candidates, Repub or Dem, comes close to Richardson, but I think that we have to look at the complete package, including the candidate who has the most potential to end the Dems' 8-year drought in presidential elections. To base your whole rationale for supporting and disliking a candidate on a single vote is, well, not very smart...

The truth is that the MSM has for months now given ZERO scrutiny to Hillary Clinton.

Could it be because they have scrutinized/investigated her for 15 years? Even the tell all books about her have nothing new to say. There are literally dozens of books written about her. She has been investigated by republican congressional committees and republican independent counsels. They have spoken to her teachers, friends, preachers, you name it. There is nothing left to scrutinize.

I wasn't surprised to see your name at the top of this post. How many times have you told us you wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstances? Is this supposed to be some sort of threat? If we don't elect your guy, then you and your ilk will sabotage another election like you did in 2000. What do you mean? You will vote green or not at all or republican. Gimme a break. Its cutting off your nose to spite your face. I would just assume people like you stay out of politics altogether if you are going to behave like such children.

Because they don't think he has the right stuff to make changes in their day to day lives. They don't buy the grand vision thing. Grand visions are for those who are already affluent and bored. Meat and potatoes is what the proletariat want. Like it or not—every poll shows they believe Hillary is the one who will put food on the table, not Obama.

All of them have said we will have a presence in Iraq for some time to come. No one is going to make radical change in this country because it just doesn't work that way most of the time. No president is going to accomplish what LBJ did in domestic politics because they will not have his mandate. There will be no electoral landslide for anyone this time, and entrenched interests will block any ideas that hurt their bottom line. Hillary has the best chance of making the small changes that will set us on a saner path once again because she knows how to work the system.

"Her vote did not matter"? Ridiculous defense of Hillary's vote and of what you see as Hillary's lack of understanding about what Congress' role is in our political arena. Then you proceed into the small lie category with "she did vote for what her constituents wanted"--last time I checked Hillary cast her vote on October 10th, 2002 when her NY consituents were not in favor of the war.

The only fair point you have is that rank and file Democrats apparently don't care about how Hillary voted. You are right that polling apparently shows that the Iraq War vote is not a meaningful issue in the campaign.

The primary campaign is in its very early stages even though it's been going on for months. Folks will start paying attention after Labor Day and then we'll either see changes in the poll results or we won't. That will be more telling than what you are writing.

Heretic said, "Obama may have higher favorables right now, but he will be dismantled in the GE. Push comes to shove, a lot of folks aren't going to risk him running the show."

Is this a just a statement of your opinion, or are you attempting to make a reasoned argument supported by some kind of facts and analysis?

I find it maddening that so many people seem to use this style of argumentation: make a big assertion with nothing to back it up.

I think the reason we all come here is because we want to exchange ideas and we hope to persuade other people to our point of view. Simply repeating our opinions doesn't move the ball forward very much.

Personally, I beleive a persuasive case can be made that HRC would be by far the most vulnerable of the three top Dems. She has a lot of personal baggage. Her position on the war has been all over the place. She has pandered to many different groups. All of which undermines any sense of authenticity and supports the Repug meme that she is all about calculation and ambition.

I think it is highly likely that she would have a negative effect on down ballot Dems because of her high unfavorable numbers and her polarizing reputation. So far the other Dems have been unwilling to directly attack any of her vulnerabilities and so her numbers have stayed high with Dems.

The Repugs, however, will have show no such restraint. Why do you think so many Repugs have been so obvious about their hope that HRC is the Dem nominee? The Repugs are not cheerleading for Hillary because they think she will make a great President, most likely, they think what I think, HRC is the most vulnerable Dem we could nominate.

Rated 1 for obnoxious, demeaning, and insulting tone. It is funny how belligerent so many Obama-haters are and yet what you do is nothing more than name-calling.

Try having a reasoned, civilized debate. Didn't your momma teach you to treat others the way you want to be treated?

I may prefer Obama, both because I think he would be less vulnerable in the GE and because I think he would make a better POTUS, but I would never bash Hillary the way you bash Obama. I recognize that she may be the nominee we have to support, and that we will all have to pull together.

Franklyo

As usual you are insulting and demeaning to those who have a different point of view. The fact that some have a different analysis of who would make the strongest nominee does not make us "Borgs." This is nothing more than name calling, and your tactics remind me of a schoolyard bully.

Voting one's so-called conscience against the will of the people is bunch of BS (except under circumstances where the majority is urging unconstitutional acts such as civil rights violations)

But not dropping bombs and occupying countries that were no threat to us?

Seems like a limited place to draw the line at unconstitutionality. 

I think you just made an excellent case for voting for Obama!

Plowboy
www.revieweder.blogspot.com

I join Terry in his position. I've been voting since 1970 in the Democrat column and have never voted third party. I will vote in November 2008 but I will not cast a vote for President if Hillary is the candidate. I am tired of the "lesser of two evils" voting nonsense that's been going on for decades. I'm tired of the DLC faction of the party that is in control.

I want a change in the Democratic Party. I will continue to work for that change, but I will not support these DLC folks with my money, energy or vote. It's really that simple.

If you don't like it, tough. I'm tired of the cowardice of the Democrats. I want them to stand for the values they "say" they stand for and stop messing around as they've been doing for decades.

I don't want to waste my time hurling invective and endlessly repeating my own opinions. I would like to exchange ideas with poeple who share many of my basic political values.

I realize that you are adament in your opposition to HRC. I on the other hand feel that we have no legitimate option but to support the Dem nominee.

B Clinton was certainly better than GW Bush, and Gore would have been much better. Breyer and Ginsburg are certainly better than Roberts and Alito. In my mind there is too much at stake to risk a repeat of Nader 2000.

Sounds familiar -- Kerry did better than Bush on everything but likeability, and luckily Kerry won despite that.

And the food Hillary will put on the table will be Chicken McNuggets -- from Tysons poultry.

To be serious, though, I will concede one point to you, heretic. In the past 40 years, beginning with 1968, the Dem with more of the "vision thing" (e.g. Bill Bradley) has typically come in second in the primary to a bread and butter person, as you say. But then that bread and butter person typically loses to the Republican!

In 1968, Humphrey was not only bread and butter but "guns and butter" and he got the nod -- a good guy, with support much like Hillary's this time around, and who like Hillary was on the wrong side of a war. McCarthy lost the nomination. Kennedy got killed, but may or may not have won the nominaiton had he survived. Though Nixon lacked vision, or lacker of vision lost to Nixon.

1972 provides a big exception: McGovern got murdelized by Nixon, but he was not actually all that terrific of a public speaker/inspirational figure/visionary. Still, it's a mark against my generalization.

In 1976, Carter, who as President was flat in his rhetoric, actually was the "vision thing" candidate in the Dem primaries -- and he won the general election.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy was the vision guy -- and of course lost to Carter, who lost to Reagan, Reagan being the ultimate "vision thing" candidate and also being a guy who stole a lot of the lunch pail vote from the Dems that you think Hillary has locked up and that Obama can't get in a general election.

In 1984, Mondale lost to Hart. Mondale got crushed by Reagan of course.

In 1988, Dukakis inspired ... no one. And was proud of that fact, running on competence. We know how well he did in the general.

In 1992, Bill C. was pretty lucky; his opponents were Tsongas and Jerry Brown, and Brown had the trappings of "vision" but actually ran that year as a weird angry populist, constantly sporting a Teamsters jacket -- for the first time in his mercurial career trying to be blue collar rather than Zen/new-agey. So it's hard to read much into the 1992 primaries either way. One thing about 1992 is certain: the guy who coined the very phrase "vision thing," George HW Bush, who gave it a name but famously admitted he did not have "the vision thing," got trounced in the general.

Bush, for all his numerous flaws ran basically a vision-type campaign in 2000 and even in 2004, rather than a detail-oriented lunch bucket campaign. Neither Kerry nor Gore ran on any vision; Kerry sadly ran away from his past, where had truly shown vision. And Gore ran away from his future; his ability to articulate a vision came only after he lost.

I think pacc deserves a "4" for finally expressing what some anti-Obama people actually feel, rather than pretending something different. Of course I think pacc is dead wrong. Obama's performances at the debates, judged by any fair standard, have been very strong -- admittedly not as strong as Hillary's in the first two but I think better in the AFL-CIO debate, where the union crowd clearly thought his answers were sharper and better than Hillary's when Hillary and Dodd tried to exploit what the MSM and pacc deemed a "gaffe" but which Obama has shown not to be a gaffe at all. Obama simply is not a lightweight; he's got more candle power than any of the other candidates. Obama detractors can be schizophrenic about this: Some detractors say, "Yes, he's plenty smart. That's why he's getting so many contributions from academics, professors, and that part of the Dem party. But he's got to express his ideas in a more accessible way." Others, like pacc, think he's a dumb lightweight. I think his problem is more in the former area, but that it's hardly a defect in him as a person, just something he needs to work on this fall in terms of expressing himself on the campaign trail.

IMHO, you are missing the point. HRC is the candidate the Repugs want to run against. Doesn't that make you just a tiny bit nervous? If not, then you have not been paying attention since 2000. HRC is the Dem with the most vulnerabilities. We need to think ahead and nominate someone who will be less vulnerable and will do more to help down ballot Dems.

List some of HRC's so-called vulnerabilities (real ones that regular voters will buy, rather than those that wingnuts and MSM have been harping about for years), and I will list those of other candidates, then let's see who is better equipped to triumph over the Repubs well-oiled smear machine. Gore was a straight arrow, but by the time they were done with him, he was a serial fabricator. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet was made to look like an unpatriotic wimp "unfit to command" vis-a-vis a draft dodger. Should Sen Obama be the nominee (I'll suppot him), you won't recognized him after they're done with him. He'd be 'Osama' (this is no joke, these folks know no shame!). HRC has been there before, so she'll be tougher to smear a second time around. What will they do? Enact Gennifer Flower Part II? Yawn...

HRC's biggest vulnerability is that people do not feel they can trust her. This fact is partly based on Republican smears, but it is also reinforced by the fact that Hillary does not come across as authentic. She comes across as carefully rehearsed and saying what she believes her audience wants to hear. She panders, frequently.

Her history on the Iraq is only one example, but it is a big one. She voted for the AUMF when she thought it was politically expedient to do so. She supported the war with numerous votes and statements for the first couple of years.

Then as the war turned unpopular, she began to hedge her bets and offered several different explantions of her AUMF vote. As the campaign got started and it became clear that the Dem base was strongly against continuation of the war, her position evolved further.

The point is that HRC's evolving positions and contadictory statements will be used by the Repugs as a club to beat her over the head in the general election. She will be unable to hold the Repubs accountable for the war because she was complicit in authorizing it.

Many of the scandals from the BC admin will be resurrected to further reinforce the attack meme that HRC is not to be trusted. Vince Foster, Rose Law billing records, travelgate. All of these scandals that directly involved HRC will be dredged up by the Rs with complicity from the right leaning elements of the MSM.

I would be willing to bet my house that the Repubs will be able to drive up her negatives. It is possible that she might prevail in a very close election. But why should Dems take that chance? We have other candidates who, I would argue, will do more to advance the progressive adgenda as POTUS and who will be better able to help down ballot Dems.

Terry, I'm curious. Who's your pick in this race? Have you done so?

Edwards is my top pick but I am an ABC. If I could truly choose anyone it would be Jim Webb.

Best, Terry

If she loses every other state in that period, she's not coming back.

The sad truth is she won't have to come back. The MSM will not make a big issue of it. They will position it as those little states not having as much importance as CA which has more electoral votes than those 3 combined, and that if HRC wins in CA...it is as good as having won those three. The power of the MSM to minimize her poor performance and make a big deal out of noise from her campaign has been proven.

We see nothing about her war vote, we see nothing about her contradictory statements. She has no FP position, no universal health care position and she has the most money of all candidates from lobbyists. We see nothing in the news on these matters. All we get coverage about 24/7 is her attacks and her campaign spin.

Hillary may not be the ideal candidate of many posters here, but on every issue that matters, especially domestic issues, from labor to the environment to judicial nominees, she will be far, far better than Giuliani or Romney or Thompson or McCain.

I no longer beleive that. Based simply on how the media coverage is going for the primaries. I do not see a big difference between her and the frontrunning GOP candidates. Hillary is not going to do a thing on domestic issues nor universal health care. She has capitulated to the monied interests and she is warmongering and using fear just like Bush did. She does not take positions or address issues she simply sends out spin messages and attacks. 'candidates should not say what they will do' 'if I knew then what I know now' and 'lobbyists represent real Americans'

I no longer see a difference between having HRC in office and a GOP in the WH. Hillary is not a traditional Democrat, she has no experience that warrants her being touted as the 'experienced' candidate and she is just more of the same. BushCheneylite.

Gravitas, experience, or whatevert won't mean squat unless the basic governing model is sound. That is why the Village Idiot's administration fell apart...Not because of lack of 'experience.'

Cheney and Bush lacked the ability to discern the model was flawed and stupid. Hillary has the same lack of judgment. She consistently misjudges which is why Obama is the superior candidate. Hillary has 20/20 hindsight . Obama has consistently demonstrated the ability to get it right the FIRST time. 

"...you are ranting and pontificating about a bill that better than 80% of the Congress (50%+ of the Senate Democrats) had voted for, and then are just singling out one person from the lot to dislike and cruficy for it."

What are you ranting about here?

Congressional vote was 373 for and 155 against. Of the 257 Democrats in Congress, 147 voted against and 110 voted for. In the Senate, 21 voted against and 29 for. In the House 126 voted against and 81 for.

I dislike all of these Democrats who were on the wrong side of this issue. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards voted the wrong way and Richardson supported it. None would have my vote in the primary.

Combined results from the four most recent Gallup surveys finds 92% of Democrats with a post-graduate education rate Sen. Barack Obama favorably while 86% rate Sen. Hillary Clinton favorably. Among Democrats with a high school education or less, 66% rate Obama favorably while 86% rate Clinton favorably.

 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady.

Cheney and Bush lacked the ability to discern the model was flawed and stupid. Hillary has the same lack of judgment. She consistently misjudges which is why Obama is the superior candidate. Hillary has 20/20 hindsight . Obama has consistently demonstrated the ability to get it right the FIRST time.

Stop it, oh please stop it!!!!

Bush and Cheney were not done in by too much experience. They were done in by flaws called greed and opportunism, the central tenets of neocons. Cheney knew precisely what he was doing, as did Rove and the whole lot. "Zod" did not lack judgment, he was just evil by nature. Got it?

Experience informs judgment...really. You're not born with good or bad judgment. You are an empty vessel that gets filled with different views depending on your experiences, education level, neuroses and psychoses (of which I see many already...). The sum of all these is what goes into making a judgment or decision.

BTW, what has Obama gotten right the first time that he has capitalized on to make a difference? He was against the invasion, as were many of us, but then he goes to the U.S. Senate and votes repeatedly to perpetuate the war. What does that tell you about his convictions and so-called "good judgment"?

I stated that despite their experience they lacked the judgment essential to discern the premise of neo-conservatism was flawed. Slow down. Read that last sentence over and over until you comprehend it's meaning.

Why attribute to poor judgment what can be easily attibuted to pure 'evil' (remember my example of "Zod")?

I hope it is much clearer now so that we can move on...