That's great, Wizlah.

This debate is on the tobacky.

They were just competing over who had more kids in public schools and now they're squirming over pedophiles.

Biden is tongue-tied.

They're watching stupid political youtubes one after the other. This is degrading.

I couldn't believe that when they cut to Hilary, that she was actually bopping her head to Obama Girl. Crazy

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:You knew Malkin was an idiot, but... wow

Wow, dajafi is a newhounds.org reader? And you say you think you are independent.

I saw it linked from The Rude Pundit. What is newshounds.org?

And I'm only an "independent" in that I think the Democrats are more than occasionally self-serving, venal, short-sighted, etc. I'm partisan, but hopefully not blindly so, and principles come far ahead of party.

It was their original web address. I guess they just recently made it .us since I never put that in and just noticed it now.

They often link to it on Crooks and Liars.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:This debate is on the tobacky.

They were just competing over who had more kids in public schools and now they're squirming over pedophiles.

Biden is tongue-tied.

Biden's got problems. He's actually about, you know, 'issues'.

chris dodd playing the part of the angry white guy

I like Biden's platform but he's having a weak debate. It happens.

problem is, with the way elections are done(money, money, money), the small-time candidates need to shine.

i donated to Biden but I am only one man.

i would never give to any candidate. its just not worth it, even for $5. its the principle of the matter.

Fox News is now bashing Hillary Clinton, saying she did awful.

Guy on Fox just said "the insurgent candidates." You can't make this stuff up.

I only saw the last half-hour, but mostly I was blown away by how much better the questions from the public were, by and large, than the usual garbage you get from the punditariat.

I'm looking forward to the questions at the Republican YouTube debate.

The republicans piss me off. Ron Paul is still polling about 1%. I hate that party.

Watching the re-broadcast of the debate. CNN aired a commercial from Homeland Security showing children, with the narrative "There is no good reason for you to not have a plan in the event of a terror attack". Sheesh.

I'm starting to think the Bush administration is really a mix of Stalinism and the Keystone Cops:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015752.php

And seriously, how insecure is this guy that everyone needs to constantly praise his "wonderful leadership"? Show, don't tell...

Great article about Hillary Clinton's Bush-like leanings and tendencies when it comes to executive power and "use of force" abroad.

Democrats hope that when it comes to international affairs, Clinton would represent a big change from George W. Bush. Republicans harbor that fear. In truth, this is one realm where the two are more alike than different. It's no accident that she voted for the resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq. And it's no mystery that she was slow to admit the war was failing.

She didn't support the war because she was hoodwinked by Bush. She didn't do it for strictly political reasons. She supported it because of her conception of America's proper role in the world—which combines a thirst for altruistic missions with a faith in the value of military force to get what you want. Those same impulses, of course, motivated the neoconservatives who urged Bush to go into Iraq.
...
As Michael Crowley of The New Republic has noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

Libertarianism generally is a pretty dippy ideology, IMO. And I don't agree with all the views, stated or implied, of this author--for one thing, I think intervention to stop a genocide can be not only a strong means to advance our highest morals, but a good realpolitik step to show the international community that we're about more than "kick their ass, take their gas" motivations.

But Democrats at least should know what they're getting when they nominate the Other Royal Family next year: another royalist who believes in the Executive SuperDuperPowers. As much ironic fun as it will be to see all the current Bush apologists try to recast themselves as defenders of checks and balances, we could be laughing all the way to despotism.

The Phillies had better win 110 games in 2008, or I'm probably going to lose my mind altogether.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLyod-8WCPA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3Frand%3D20070727014216%26paged%3D3[/youtube]

I was ok with his initial response. But the lighten up part is ridiculous. Equating the dem candidates to Osama is ridiculous.

I'd like to see someone have a sign that has Hitler and John Smith on it and see what this a-hole says about that.

dajafi wrote:Great article about Hillary Clinton's Bush-like leanings and tendencies when it comes to executive power and "use of force" abroad.

Democrats hope that when it comes to international affairs, Clinton would represent a big change from George W. Bush. Republicans harbor that fear. In truth, this is one realm where the two are more alike than different. It's no accident that she voted for the resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq. And it's no mystery that she was slow to admit the war was failing.

She didn't support the war because she was hoodwinked by Bush. She didn't do it for strictly political reasons. She supported it because of her conception of America's proper role in the world—which combines a thirst for altruistic missions with a faith in the value of military force to get what you want. Those same impulses, of course, motivated the neoconservatives who urged Bush to go into Iraq.
...
As Michael Crowley of The New Republic has noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

Libertarianism generally is a pretty dippy ideology, IMO. And I don't agree with all the views, stated or implied, of this author--for one thing, I think intervention to stop a genocide can be not only a strong means to advance our highest morals, but a good realpolitik step to show the international community that we're about more than "kick their ass, take their gas" motivations.

But Democrats at least should know what they're getting when they nominate the Other Royal Family next year: another royalist who believes in the Executive SuperDuperPowers. As much ironic fun as it will be to see all the current Bush apologists try to recast themselves as defenders of checks and balances, we could be laughing all the way to despotism.

The Phillies had better win 110 games in 2008, or I'm probably going to lose my mind altogether.

Interesting stuff.

I guess I still regard myself as a neocon, and I guess that means I'm aligned with Dub and Hillary here. This fairly describes my POV: "America's proper role in the world...combines a thirst for altruistic missions with a faith in the value of military force"

I've long felt that the USA is the sole adult on the playground. We do have a duty to protect the innocent from the bullies. Now, I suppose that my view is colored largely by WWII, in which we selflessly sacrificed for the good of free and oppressed peoples around the globe, then went even further to establish democracies and rebuild the very countries whose twisted leaders were set to destroy us.

That noble effort shines so brightly, it can obscure all the horrible and selfish foreign policy undertakings we had, before and after WWII, especially concerning the middle east.

But I really think that the WWII model influences and motivates the good liberals and the neocons who want to use our vast powers to improve the world.

I'm not sure it's realistic. Seeing how badly we bungled Iraq, how poorly we anticipated all the side effects, no matter how noble our intent. In the long run, ousting Saddam may turn out to have been a worthwhile undertaking, but it's getting harder to envision how.

The biggest well-intentioned global policy mistake of the last 100 years, though, was the establishment of Israel in its current location. Holy grounds, schmoly grounds. Instead of that barren desert so coveted by Arabs, we could have established Israel in Florida, and the Arabs, the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the whole world would be happier. Frankly, it's still a good idea. Take the high ground, cede the land, put Israel right in the USA, everybody wins.