http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

It's an Edwards ad, but I have to admit it is well done.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

it is well done...the thought of this lady running my country scares me

she will say anything to anyone to get a vote and that is pretty fucking scary

I thought it was slick and unfortunately I've come to expect that of Edwards since he sold himself to Soros and MoveOn.org, who oppose her for not being left enough.

She actually won points with me on her speech. I found it reasonable to try to wind down the war and get troops home and at the same time recognise that some troops will be needed there in case of need and also to combat groups like AQ in Iraq. She also made perfect sense to me on the driver's licences for illegal immigrants issue in that whilst it isn't something one should want to do because it is the federal government's responsibility to handle immigration controls, it make sense for states to give illegals driver's licences given the fact they are here whether one wants them here or not, and leaving them without them only causes more harm. Four years ago, given I am known for working on driver's licence issues in my state in court, I even wrote an OP-ED article for the Philadelphia Inquirer upon their request setting forth the same argument:

I haven't decided whether Hillary will get my vote at all. However, one thing that does put me off is the insistence of so many of those running for office to reduce public debate of very important issues to bumper sticker slogans, yes/no false choices on complicated subject matter, 'gotcha' gimmicks, false attacks on competitors, and other techniques that dumb down the very important debates we all need to consider when selecting a candidate and being informed voters for choosing wisely.

Do I prefer a detailed and nuanced answer? You bet--on any complicated issue. I want to know whether a candidate knows the details and is a policy wonk, not a simpleton with simplistic answers. I also want to know that a candidate is not interested in choosing positions to please those who don't know what they are talking about to our national detriment.

I got similarly put off when I saw Rudy Giuiliani get the same treatment at one GOP debate where he went into great detail about the things he did when mayor of NY, including why and how he took positions on taxes, guns, immigrants, etc. Nobody else seemed to willing to do that--they just went straight to base-pleasing bumper sticker comments, spin attacks, and citing blanket talking points, etc. IMO, he explained his actual tactics whilst mayor and why and explained how he felt they were very successful for NY and yet not in repudiation of some basic platforms (responsible use of guns, using gun laws against the lawbreakers and not the law abiding, etc). And, IMO, he did indeed do a very good job fixing up and running a quagmire city government and a city that had many social problems before he took office. It was not just -- "hey I'm the 9.11 governor" -- as many opponents like to pigeonhole him for the bumpersticker crowd who can't digest anything deeper than that. Yet, his opponents have tried to bumper sticker him as being only about "9.11" or being "against GOP platforms" that are put to the public in bumper sticker form without any explanation. I think it really stinks if candidates get penalised for actually explaining their policies and making an argument of how they worked out well in practice.

None of this means I will vote for Giuliani either at this time. But, Rudy and Hillary have a much better shot at getting my vote than Edwards who puts out ads like that and is far more prone to give me bumpersticker slogans and base-pleasing dogma without a real discussion because that really tells me nothing about whether he has sound ground for what he is advocating.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

O'Sullivan is right. All the other candidates are running for the nomination. Hillary is running for President. Lets face it, if the polls are right, and the Clinton's have the best pollsters available, the nomination is hers to lose. When you look at the other candidates you can see why. Edwards comes across as the slimy lawyer that he is. Furthermore, as part of the ticket four years ago he has to accept part of the blame. Obama, him with the name that sounds like Osama, will be in well over his head in a general election. They will "swift boat" him to pieces over his name and his upbringing. When they do not attack him for his lack of experience in foreign relations. (a charge that has some validity) Richardson is a nice guy, he is a diplomat and the governor of a western state. He would be my only alternative to Hillary and my choice for VP. The other three, in my opinion, have no shot, none whatsoever. Which leaves us with Hillary. She is already swinging to the right as she will have to do in a general election. She will have a tough row to hoe because they will go after her for , first of all, the Bush-Clinton succession and than they will bring up all the crap that they threw at Bill during his eight years and they will even question her judgement because she stayed with the philanderer. She knows all that and you can bet that she is prepared for it. She would be far preferred to any republican as would of course any democrat. They all sound like George Bush and the thought of any of them getting elected scares the bejebers out of me. Especially that Rudy or Johnny Mc. Both of them would cause me to build a bomb shelter.

Hillary has already explained why we shouldnt vote for her:

Cant wait to put that on a bumper sticker.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Think about this Rakkasan: as scared as you are of Hilary running the country, is as scared as people on the Left are of George Bush running it.

Rakkasan is exagerating though. Even with Hillary as President, this will be the best country in the world. One person is not the US. The same goes for Bush. On the other hand, its pretty obvious the hate and rage against Bush from the left.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Which politician wouldn't? I'm not asking that rhetorically.

I'm not scared. Let's ask it right out loud. What business does this old bitch have running our country???

None I say. Not one iota. What does she know about you or me? Nothing. She knows about hiding bodies.

I'm reading a very well written book regarding Hillary's background and decision making style:

The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton , by Bay Buchanan.

Buchanan goes into what Hillary is, and that is a gifted academic. She can read and absorb information as well as anyone. But what she can't do is apply creative or critical thinking to a problem. Therefore she is susceptible to whomever can debate an issue the best. Her decision making style is to gather experts around her and listen to their opinions. Then she makes a decision.

The flaw in her style is that she feels that as a part of government she can inflict herself and the government authority into any aspect of our lives. She rejects the idea that people can make their own decisions and should. Only someone in the position of say president can see and understand all the minutia necessary to make the best decisions for the people.

It's a classic difference between liberals and conservatives.

RJ

I haven't read the book or researched its author and funding so I can't judge its accuracy or objectivity as it pertains to Hillary. I do know she surrounds herself with advisers but that's a good thing if they are wise. I also know she wants to get involved in some things but leave alone others that others would invade.

The kind of flaw you are citing is not, IMO, one between liberals and conservatives as those identities are presently understood in US politics. It's libertarianism that you've cited above in US political understanding, or classical liberalism in European parlance, whose philosophy fits what you described and whose leanings fit one or the other as being 'liberal' or 'conservative' in today's US depending on the issue. Each wing of contemporary US liberalism or conservatism has its list of platforms and issues for using or checking Big Brother. To the libertarian, it's more a choice of pick your poison or choosing which arm to lose and discovering which candidate in a race means to cut off more or less.

I also think that it's a tough call to determine whether one it correct when any politician makes a decision stating that they do know more than the common joe on certain issues to make a decision. Indeed they often do because they are in the thick of the issue and get to know the real nuances and details, including privileged information at times. Voters playing armchair quarterback, being the 'I know better' truckstop attorney, the bumpersticker expert, etc, is many times the worse thing.

Indeed, office decision making and empowerment can be very seductive, leading some to conclude that they should manage everything down to the tee. Good decision makers realise that a decision to butt out is also a decision and may be the best one. What is important, IMO, is for voters to try their best to get the best information they can and vote what they think is the best call based upon that in good faith.

This issue just came up in a local election in my area yesterday. In one race, one of my cross votes (I try to make the best calls in good faith always) for a GOP guy was based upon his having the prerequisite experience and resume for seeking reelection but needing to overcome an attack ad that made him look incompetent and wasteful with certain lawsuits and decisions. If you did your homework, though, instead of just reading the bumpersticker style attacks, he was actually doing the right things on a tricky and complicated subject and was showing his competency--not incompetency--in his job tasks. Going the direction of the alternatives posed by the attack ad would be inconclusive at best and worse at worst as to whether it was better or even viable. Of course, how the 'other way' would work was not explained, something that suggested an empty suit. Attacks on one way do not necessarily mean a better alternative solution at all and platforms should be explained why they are wise. If one can't or won't, that to me means the candidate isn't making their case why they are the better choice. Also, voting against that GOP guy just because of his party badge or based on angers over Bush or any other office or race where there is no meaningful link followed by their own perceived decision errors for which personal accountability attaches is unfair and unwise.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

If you do, I'd like to hear your opinion. In the meantime you might like to know the author is the sister of Pat Buchanan. She's a conservative Republican. More info at:

Bay Buchanan

Of course it's important to have good advisors on staff. I wouldn't expect the president to make his/her decisions in a vacuum. There is a huge difference, however, in having good advisors and insulating oneself with an army of experts. But more on that in a moment.

I don't want to get all wrapped up in definitions and labels. I'll take your word that I've described libertarianism. As long as we understand that one group invites government intervention for any of a variety of reasons. While the other prefers government to play as little a role as possible in their lives. Hillary obviously feels that government has a large role to play and feels very comfortable involving herself in American society wherever she sees fit.

As I mentioned, I am just now reading the book, "The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Clinton". I am comparing it to other books on our leaders that I've read. In this case a very good book comes to mind titled, "The Essence of Decision". Its basis is the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it explains very clearly how JFK was introduced to the foggy world of executive decision making.

You first have to understand that the decision maker will never have all the information he needs or wants. And the information he has is never perfect. That's why critical thinking skills are absolutely imperative. Lawyers are particularly prone to the trap of faulty information. It's because they are trained to focus on the law as written. That forms the boundary from which the operate. They will proceed as if the information they have is complete and perfect. And when they get stung by events they could not envision they call it the law of "Unforeseen Consequences". Actually, that is just a nice way of saying, "Oh shit, we never thought of that!"

The most recent example of a president who had no critical thinking ability was LBJ. He was schooled at a teachers' college in Texas and then went into politics. He believed that the military did not understand politics well enough to work within his vision of foreign diplomacy. Therefore, he and his advisors kept the final decision on targets and ground offenses in Washington, DC. They also tried to reduce the progress of the Vietnam War to a set of statistics. This included the pacification of hamlets, enemy body count, and the like. And we see what a mess he made of that.

Government is a very blunt intstrument and there is a great story to demonstrate that. Government leaders noticed that plant life was sparse in the rocky higher regions of their land. It was dry and only weeds would grow up there. They also saw that the most fertile ground was in the valleys. They decided it was unfair that the plants in the valley were so well fed and watered while the plants on the hilltops were doing without. So they built a public water system that pumped water to the upper areas and distributed it evenly. The outcome was a bumper crop of weeds that thrived in the rocky hilltops. There was less water in the valley so conservation was established. And the thriving weeds began to encroach on the flowering fields and meadows below. Finally the plant specialists realized there was a reason why the hilltops were so dry. Water doesn't run uphill!

And I'm afraid that many of Hillary's ideas are nothing more than just trying to make water run uphill.

RJ

Hillary has no real convictions.

She would be honest if she were to answer every question with this statement; 'What answer would help get me in the White House?

__________________


"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis,"

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,

the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." - Rep. Barney Frank (D)

As far as the drivers license things goes it sounds like a good idea, getting people out of the shadows etc…. ,,,,,well ad good as long as this document entitles tem to nothing other than a verifiable form of id regards their name etc…..it should not be use for voting registration or the authority to drive …they can get a state ID that is simply that…..if anyone thinks they will be any safer because they will have to show proof of insurance etc. to get a license, keep in mid all you need show is proof you have paid at least the 90 day initial insurance fee, nothing tracks whether they keep their insurance up to date….

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

and they can vote...illegally...because all that is required to vote is.....you guessed it...a driver's license.

Illegals voting legally.

What a warped world.

__________________

I think anyone who shows up for govt services should be asked to prove their citizenship, and if illegal, deported immediately, no exceptions. That being the case, illegals have no need for id. THat is what Hillary should have said, but democrats need illegal votes to win.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.