Joe Shikspack Weighs In On Another Joe...

Thank you Joe Shikspack...

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let the festivities begin:)

Happy New Year and the Promise Of Democracy In Action

Friends, Americans, Fellow Citizens...lend me your ears...

The people of New Orleans and the River Region have come not to praise Ceasar...

But to bury him.

In the weeks and months since I have returned to New Orleans a most amazing thing has happened between those who have chosen to remain and fight for our city and the culture of New Orleans...

Democracy.

Citizens have joined hands, hearts and voices to speak out as I have never witnessed before. In the weeks leading up to the Christmas holidays, a small group of determined citizens began a non-partisan, grass-roots movement to speak out against the corruption and divided leadership of our politicians not only locally, but on a state level. With the population of New Olreans brimming at approximately 60-70,000 people, a total of 46,000 signatures were obtained as of three weeks ago and the momentum is only building.

Please visit the "Citizens for 1 Greater New Orleans" site:

http://cgno.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage&JServSessionIdr005=8jch09ez21.app2b

The main thrust of this movement has been to unify the Levee Board across the State of Louisiana into one governing body. The outcry has been so loud the Governor has been forced to call a special session of the legislature to deal with this issue...and we will not stop there...we cannot afford to squander this clarity of thought and purpose within our local community.

I have been astounded and amazed at the strength and determination of the survivors of this great catastrophe, and one thing I have learned is:

Tragedy and adversity does not build character...genuine character is revealed by it.

Happy New Years and many blessings to all who stand united for a better future for all of humanity.

Peace, Love and Compassion,

Indy in New Orleans

Thanks for the inspiring update, Indy.

It's been a long time now since I called New Orleans my second home. (In fact, for a few years there it came rather close to being my first home rather than my second. But that's another story for another time.)

But no matter how much water has flowed over the levees since then... New Orleans has never been far from my heart and mind, no matter where I might have fetched up at any given moment.

Despite the physical distance betwen us now, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, "Ich bin ein Nalwiner." And judging by the nationwide outpouring of emotional support for your embattled city, I am not alone in that regard.

The great diaspora of Katrina victims to other parts of the country -- the greatest mass migration of urban citizens ever in this country, and one that eclipses even the agragrian Dust Bowl years in its size and scope -- has also helped to educate other Americans everywhere about just how important that musty, magical metropolis is to the heart and soul of our beloved country.

In your own words, "tragedy and adversity does not build character... genuine character is revealed by it." And the thousands and thousands of physical citizens of New Orleans, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of spiritual citizens of New Orleans, are proving that to the rest of our far-flung nation every day.

Let the courage and determination and tenacity of Nawliners be an example to us all as we fight to take back our country from those who have tried so hard to steal it away from us. Let us rebuild our democratic republic this year in the the same way that Nawliners have rebuilt their beloved city not just once, but many times over the centuries.

These are magical words to say, and a powerful force to believe in:

"Ich bin ein Nawliner."

And so, if we're dedicated and determined and fortunate enough, are we all.

fresh beignets and chicory coffee are more than just breakfast -- they're a state of mind,
Otter

Via Wikipedia:

-----

"Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" (French for "Liberty, equality, brotherhood") is the motto of the French Republic.

The slogan of the French Revolution was "Liberte, egalite, fraternite, ou la mort!" ("Freedom, equality, brotherhood, or death!"). This slogan outlived the revolution, later becoming the rallying cry of the activists, both militant and non-violent, who promote democracy or overthrow of oppressive governments.

-----

Now we, as small-d democrats in the United States, are searching for our own identity as the New Patriots of our country in the 21st century. We need our own rallying cry, to reflect the realities of where we stand and what we're up against.

Might I humbly suggest paying homage to the revolutions of thought and principle that came before us, by making this the touchstone of our own calls to action:

"Honnetete, Integrite, Fidelite!"

We can and should demand that all the actions of all of our elected representatives live up to those three simple words:

Honesty.

Integrity.

Fidelity.

"Honnetete, integrite, fidelite".

Nothing less than that can be acceptable in those we select to represent us. Not any more.

no liberty no justice no peace,
Otter

Quoted without comment:

"When conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs;
now that it's a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs."
-- David Brooks

I say we say balls! to the whole lot of 'em,
Otter

Re-post from a previous thread...(Seems more appropriate in this one)

Republocrats vs. Demuglicans??

Is this TRULY the best we can do? Are we STILL clinging to the idea that there is a DIFFERENCE between the party participants?

It seems that there are NO politicians that can make up their minds on ANY given subject...IE...Hilary Clinton on the war...Is torture acceptable...Should we spy on American citizens...

If your still "walking the tight rope" or "setting on the fence" unable to understand the concept of "Right and Wrong"...in the face of the evil, lying, cheating, manipulating...even MURDERING that goes on in the name of "Freedom and Democracy", then I fear there is not much hope for government in general.

I have a good friend that says, "Your problem is, that you still think there is is a difference between the parties", and that what people want is NOT freedom...but "another link in their chain". Who wants to give up the corporate sponsored health care benifits they enjoy?...Or those checks from the government that come at retirement age? All we REALLY seem to want is another link in our chains...to be a bit LESS restricted in our daily lives...but only to a point.

One of our own group here, Oncall (a person by the way that I have the HIGHEST respect and regard for) said just last night that he would "hold his nose, and vote for Hilary" if that was the best the Democrats could do in '08. Im sorry..but if Hilary is the BEST we can do...we are in serious trouble as a nation.

I'm afraid our own "irreverant reverand Indy" was correct...we no longer have a two party system, but "Corporatist" and their Lackeys...neither side able to rock the boat too much, in fear of angering the Corporate GODS.

I believe that it may be the case that NOTHING that happens in Washington DC really matters much (at least as far as the "People" are concerned. It may just be that the "best we can hope for" is to get involved in our own local government systems in our home towns and counties...and attempt to make life better for ourselves and neighbors, and hope that the wider state and national systems stay OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!

That "Cabin in the hills, with the long winding driveway with the gate at the road" is looking better and better to me all the time. But people, being the nosey, meddling creatures we are, wont let that happen...just look at Ruby Ridge, and Waco for examples of how they react to THAT solution...

I pray that by 2008 the issues that polarize this nation can be defined, and refind so as to be absolutely clear in our minds...but with the spin and lie machines on BOTH SIDES clouding those issues, I think the odds are not good...2006 may indeed be the more relevant year in politics (assuming that politics really ARE relevant to the individual anymore).

Maybe it would have been a good idea for our representives, rather that posturing, to have attmepted to find out exactly WHY most of the world HATES the US, going back to the iranian hostage crisis in 1980, and even further back to the "banana republics" of the 50's. I wish I had an answer to THAT question...

In 2k6...lets try and "keep it real" folks.

January 3, 2006
Editorial Observer
Question for Judge Alito: What About One Person One Vote?
By ADAM COHEN

When Samuel Alito Jr. applied for a top job in the Reagan Justice Department, he explained what had attracted him to constitutional law as a college student. He was motivated, he said, "in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment." The reapportionment cases that so upset young Mr. Alito were a series of landmark decisions that established a principle that is now a cornerstone of American democracy: one person one vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/opinion/03tues3.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/abramoff-plea1.html

Abramoff Plea to Conspiracy, Mail Fraud, and Tax Evasion, January 3, 2006.

******
HUGE!!!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6280

NSA Spying Whistleblower!!
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2006-01-03 12:03. Evidence

Former NSA intelligence analyst & action officer urges to be heard by Congress regarding unlawful conduct by NSA
Submitted by jplummer on Thu, 2005-12-22 15:57. National security whistleblowers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- December 21, 2005

Former NSA intelligence analyst & action officer urges to be heard by Congress regarding unlawful conduct by NSA

Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, has sent the following two letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Mr. Tice intends to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These acts involved the Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs (SAP). SAP programs and operations are more commonly referred to as “black world” programs and operations. Mr. Tice was a technical intelligence specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations at both NSA and DIA.

Mr. Tice stated:
"It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.”

Exclusive backstory: How a jilted ex-fiance snared Scanlon, Abramoff, talking to FBI... Soon...

http://www.rawstory.com/

I hope Abramoff has good life insurance, if he has any family that's depending on him.

Because his life may not be worth 2 cents about right now.
And I'm sorry if some feel that there's no difference in the two parties. If there's no difference in the two parties, or in the Clintons and what we have in office right now, then why are we all bothering to fight for change through the democratic process anymore.
And I'm sorry, but if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I'll be waving my placard high at the voting booth, not just holding my nose and voting for her. Because there is a huge difference in a centrist moderate and a right wing fanatic. If liberals can't see that nothing is any good other than someone of their own persuasion, maybe they that needs to form another party. And, when they do, they'll pull enough democrats away from our party that we'll be cursed with a fascist right wing dicator until the end of the Republic, which will take a very short time.

We're not going to get a totally anti-corporate candidate into office, probably not ever, because that's where the money is. That's just reality. We have to work within the system we have, and do the best we can.

Because this isn't about you and me, not if we're over 40. It's about our children and our children's children and their right to live in a democracy.

Clinging stubbornly to a vision of a reality that isn't possible right now just isn't going to accomplish that.

Sorry, but the slams against other democrats are really getting to me, and I'm on my soapbox. If I offend, then I offend.

But we had just enough young idealists that didn't go vote the last election that George W Bush has another 4 years to destroy this country. And they just sort of make me sick.

I was so P'O'ed that I forgot my grammer. I meant "maybe they need to form another party."
And I'm not defending Joe Lieberman, because no one on the planet thinks Joe Lieberman will get the nomination in 2008.
We all know who we're talking about here.
We're talking about, probably, the better half of the only successful Democratic president in the last 30 years.
Dream on folks- America resides in the center of the political spectrum.
And that's pretty much, except for the great depression, the way it's always been.

And I'm so P.O'ed off right now that I'm gonna say something else on here- Pc doc wants to blame Hillary for not opposing the war right now.
John Kerry has not said we need to leave Iraq immediately either.
And he voted for the war. Split hairs all you want about what he voted for the IRC. Nuances, split hairs, he didn't really vote for what you thought he did. Baloney- that's not what the American public saw. His vote may very well have cost him the election, especially when he had the chance to renounce it when he was at the Grand Canyon, or at least to say he'd made a mistake, and he refused to do so.
He stubbornly stuck with his opinion until he lost the election to Bush, and now we're in the mess we're in.
All the anti- Hillary rantings on here are hypocrisy- this is the former Kerry blog, and John Kerry hasn't shown spine enough to say get out now either.
So why not slam him too?
You know why not, because most people on here are hoping he'll get the nomination in 2008 again, and they're busy already tearing down any possible other candidates particulary the supposed "front runner."
And the media is reading, and they'll use any ammo we give them to tear whoever our candidate is apart.
That's why I'm so P.O.ed. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Maybe I'd better get off for a few days and get some air.

Apologies if this has been mentioned/discussed already... Just listening to David Sirota on Al Franken's show talk about the illegal warrantless wiretapping... They brought up a very interesting point: if evidence was obtained illegally, will it be admissable in court???

Abramoff pleads guilty in corruption case
Top lobbyist could face 30 years in prison if convicted

BREAKING NEWS
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 1:05 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2006
WASHINGTON - Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy to commit fraud and other charges in a corruption probe that could involve several top Republican lawmakers, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Abramoff faces 30 years in prison if convicted of the charges.

Abramoff, 46, had become one of the best known lobbyists on the Hill, employing people who had worked for lawmakers and creating close ties to Rep. Delay, R-Texas.

Story continues below ↓

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10692635/

A look at the characters who have been linked to an investigation revolving around former high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

• Jack Abramoff
• Michael Scanlon
• Adam Kidan
• David Safavian
• Tony C. Rudy
• Rep. Robert W. Ney, R-OH
• Neil Volz
• Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX
• Sen. Conrad Burns, R-MT
• Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-CA
• Peter Ferrara
• Doug Bandow

Can I say it?!?!?

HA HA!!!

Actually Linda, I'm going to wait to decide about which candidate to support till I see who's running. I don't think it's fair to assume that all support here will automatically go to JK. There are a lot of intelligent people here who will make an informed decision when the time comes to make it.

I think that doc's point has more to do with the idea that there isn't all that much difference between republicans and democrats some days. And he's looking for a candidate who will stand up and state their principles. That's not bad -- just a different way of looking at things.

One of the things that Sunny, doc's wife, reminded me of recently is that they live right near Fort Riley and she has many of the children of military families in her classroom and school. As a result she has a unique perspective on the destructive power of the Iraq war/occupation. I think that it contributes to the strong feelings that she and doc have that there is no room for waffling on the Iraq war.

That said, I agree with you. If, by chance, Hilary Clinton is the nominee, I'll be out there supporting her as I did JK this time because as you said, "...there is a huge difference in a centrist moderate and a right wing fanatic."

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 3, 2006 01:08 PM

I understand your frustration. And IMHO, even though we do need to do a better job of thinking/acting strategically, we've got serious tactical goals to achieve before 2008...like 2006 mid-terms. So much can happen before the next national election cycle begins (although it does seems to never end...). I think it's a waste of our energies to be promoting ANY presidential candidate now.

I also agree about the media collecting ammo. And not only the media, but also the opposing party. You can bet your *ss that they are hoping for lots of Democratic schisms & infighting.

Posted by: madame defarge at January 3, 2006 01:10 PM

Actually I think it was on firedoglake, there's already been mention of defense attorneys getting ready to appeal because of the impact of the intelligence gained from warrantless surveillance. And the fact that the prosecuting attorneys had no idea that the info they were using was gained without warrants.

Think it was also reported in WaPo and NYT.

applicable references from firedoglake which lead to the other publications...

This one refers to the NYT article as well as one from Booman Tribune that lays out the impact on cases already prosecuted or in process...
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_firedoglake_archive.html#113574479944527929

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/12/27/23415/589

After you click on this link, scroll down to the post titled "Fruit of the Poison Tree"
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113605068777569301

earlier post on the impact of the warrantless searches on terrorism prosecutions...
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113612769691591382

New Orleans...

FOREVER!!!

from kos poster debby, a new bumper sticker / banner for you to use, tip of the hat to speedy...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/1/3/8023/33501/218#218

here's a link directly to the jpg...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/debbyl65/wiretap.jpg

The comments are more interesting than the story, but this article makes headway - and don't forget to read the comments!

THE FAILURES OF POST-9/11 MEDIA
Laura Barcella, AlterNet
A new book asks America's top journalists for insights on whypost-9/11, pre-Iraq War news coverage was so shoddy.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29833/

2006 is where our energies should be directed. No doubt about that.

However, I think it should be clear that we do take what we are given when our choices are between not so good and really bad candidates. Have I voted enthusiastically for every candidate? Certainly not-as I have made compromises. But I do understand that there will never be one candidate with whom I am in 100% agreement.

As regards to John Kerry and the mistakes he made in the last election. Those mistakes have been thoroughly dissected, analyzed, and interpreted ad nauseum. Never the less whatever goes for my feelings about a politician not taking a cogent stand about Iraq goes for all politicians as well. Any politician who doesn't have the nerve to take a stand either in support or against our continued involvement in Iraq deserves to be labeled as either an opportunist or waffler. It is just too easy to say that we should have a plan to get out as soon as the Iraqis are able to protect themselves. That is way too open ended for me. Personally I believe that Rep. Murtha has submitted the most honest appraisal and recommendations for our continued presence in Iraq.

Why can't many other political leaders in the Democratic party take and defend their position on this issue as well? I am especially critical of Hillary Clinton as she is the defacto Democratic leader for President, and because of that I am disappointed that she can not clearly state exactly her postion on the war. I don't know if she is being hypocritical or just cynically using her position to figure out what she should say about the war. As was mentioned above, everybody knows what the votes were about just preceeding the war. I would submit that everybody also knows what the importance of the current discussion and a politician's evasions means as well.

If the Republicans are using our discussion on this blog as ammunition for the upcoming elections, then maybe we should consider that candidates who don't have anything really different to offer on the war than Republicans don't deserve our attention. Certainly there are many other issues other than the war which are critical for America, but the war will continue to be the dominant issue. I believe that no matter one's position on the war, there is a mountain of difference between the current leaders and everybody else.

I could keep going but this will get way too long.

Posted by: Indy at January 3, 2006 10:03 AM

Indy,

Great work you and others are doing in NO.

Democracy-it works.

... If you work it.

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport.

A first-person account is worth a thousand editorials.

I'm only including a few excerpts taken from this highly-personal piece in today's WashPo, even though it's not a particularly long one; but I really hope that you'll follow the link and go read the whole thing through for yourselves.

In a small, still voice, it speaks volumes.

-----

A LIFE, WASTED
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

By Paul E. Schroeder

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.

In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.

At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

-----

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/comub

every man's death diminishes me; for I am involved in mankind,
Otter

And more pioignant news from today's Chicago Tribune:

-----

SLAIN GI'S FAMILY GETS HELP AFTER HOUSE FIRE
Home is destroyed; Lt. Gov. Quinn launches trust fund

Standing on his family's charred front porch, tears welled as Jesse Alcozer Jr. listed his father's misfortunes.

In the last three years, the senior Alcozer lost his job when his company moved overseas, and he saw his veteran's benefits slashed. The former Marine, wounded in Vietnam, learned in November that his 21-year-old son, Christopher, was killed fighting in Iraq. Then he faced protesters at his son's funeral.

On Dec. 27, Alcozer, 57, lost his house to fire after a candle burning in his son's honor was left unattended.

"We've tried to be a good family and good people," said Alcozer Jr., 33, Christopher's half-brother, as tears built and slowly fell. "Hopefully there's karma, and it all comes back to you."

[snip]

Included in a shrine assembled in the home for Pvt. Christopher Alcozer killed Nov. 19 in Mosul, Iraq, were photos, a teddy bear and candles lit daily. On Dec. 27, the family forgot to extinguish a candle before retiring to the second floor for the evening.

About 30 minutes later, while the family watched "Toy Story," a smoke alarm alerted them to the fire downstairs. Alcozer said he briefly tried fighting the blaze with a fire extinguisher but ran with his family out the back door.

As firefighters attacked the flames, Alcozer realized he had forgotten one of his most valued possessions, a wooden, triangular box that holds his son's medals and the American flag that had draped his coffin.

Once the flames were out, an Elmhurst Fire Department commander ordered two firefighters to look for the box. They found it on the second floor within 10 minutes, under blackened debris.

"We felt it was the right and honorable thing to do," said Kevin Cwirla, one of the firefighters who returned the box to Alcozer.

[snip]

-----

Full story here: http://tinyurl.com/7c925

send not to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee,
Otter

oncall- I don't want to spend the day arguing with people that I like and respect, but what is the opinion of John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, even Wes Clark on the war at this point in time? Not one of them has said we need to leave Iraq at this very moment. Hillary Clinton's statement was not waffling at all- she basically said that the choices that have to be made at this time are difficult and it's not easy to know what to do.
When you engage in a war that becomes a quagmire, it's difficult to know what to do. If anyone on here has a perfect solution, they should state it, or the shouldn't sit around and criticize others who have no solutions either. There are situations in life to which there are no good solutions. This is one of them. It's that simple, and that's what Hillary Clinton was saying. If we leave now, there will be a civil war, and the Shites will win it with Iran's help. And Iran can then work together with Iraq on developing their bombs. If we don't leave now, more young Americans will die and for absolutely nothing, since the above situation will, no doubt, happen as soon as we pull out anyway.
Hillary Clinton is not to be blamed- she did not get us into this war, anymore than John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, or any other Democrat did, except in the fact that they all voted for the IWR. They were lied to by the President, and operated on the basis that they trusted a liar. That was their fatal error- and it's going to end a lot of their careers eventually, along with the careers of a lot of Republicans.
The Republicans caused this disaster of a war, and they're now convincing the American people that no Democrat should be trusted because the Democrats don't have a plan either. Well, duh.
If you break a piece of glass into a million pieces and can't put it back together yourself, you're not allowed to ridicule someone else in the room for not knowing how to fix the damned thing.
That's what the Democrats need to say right now. They're not in power, the mess isn't theirs, it's up to the majority party in both houses of Congress to fix it. And they should say just that.
But there is a lot of Clinton hating that goes on in this blog, and I do think that it has to do with a desire to get rid of Hillary before she even declares that she's going to run, which she may, by the way, never do.
Unless I'm mistaken, the last presidential candidate, winner or loser, is generally regarded as the most influential member of his party, at least until someone else becomes the nominee later on. Al Gore was certainly the titular head of our party- the one the press went to for his opinion,
during the 4 years after 2000. Now that person is John Kerry. Kerry is making speeches like he's running in '08, and that's just fine. But I'm not willing to declare him the nominee 3 years before the election and to sit here and put down every other democrat who offers him any competition.
Quite frankly, I don't think he can win in '08- he'd have all the angry Vietnam vets coming out of the woodworks just like he did last year, and they'd be his undoing, again. But he's the most prominent Democrat around right now, so why not criticize him for not having a clear answer to the Iraqi situation. Why not criticize everyone for not having a solution to an unsolvable problem. And be sure that you criticize your own party leaders instead of the other parties leaders. That's always a good way to assure total defeat. And
Whatever you do, don't come up with any ideas yourself.
I think I'm just in the wrong place.
I'm not living anywhere that I have to form a circular firing squad against other democrats. I'm not gonna be our own worst enemy.
And if that's what the blog is about, it's not for me.

Posted by: dwahzon at January 3, 2006 01:19 PM

One of the things that Sunny, doc's wife, reminded me of recently is that they live right near Fort Riley and she has many of the children of military families in her classroom and school. As a result she has a unique perspective on the destructive power of the Iraq war/occupation. I think that it contributes to the strong feelings that she and doc have that there is no room for waffling on the Iraq war.

Linda,
I am very glad that DW has made you aware of why
we have felt so strongly about this war and how it effects the whole family. If we Truly needed to go to war, I assure you the response might be diferent. I look into the eyes of these kids every single day that have not seen their loved ones for a very long time and when they do it generally is for only 2 weeks and then they are gone again. What reasonable adult could look into their eyes and not see that if a representitive of WE the people cannot take a stand on this, they should not be sending anyone into a war such as this.

The following report comes to us courtesy of 'Donkey Rising', the in-house blog of The Emerging Democractic Majority website:

-----

DEMS TARGET SEVEN STATES TO WIN SENATE MAJORITY

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has decided to focus on winning races in seven states to regain a majority in the U.S. Senate, according to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the DSCC. The Associated Press reports that the targeted Senate races will be in Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Missouri, Montana and Tennessee. Dems currently enjoy a better than 2-1 fund-raising advantage, with $22 million in their campaign war chest, according to the AP.

The article also offers insight into Schumer's strategy for individual campaigns, noting:

"In part to counteract charges that Democrats are disconnected from average Americans, Schumer has for years boosted his political strength by constant public appearances throughout New York state.

"Every year, he has visited each of the 62 counties, talking up local issues or touting some new piece of federal funding. In 2004, that effort paid off with Schumer winning all but one county.

"It is a strategy he is preaching to 2006 candidates.

"Schumer is also trying to pare his party's message down to a few straightforward ideas.

"'Mostly, it's the meat and potato issues: Save Social Security. Fix prescription drugs. Energy independence,' he said."

The targeting decision may create some buzz among Democratic strategists, some of whom have made compelling arguments against focusing on a few races to the detriment of others. See, for example, Ruy Teixeira's article making the case against narrow targeting of House of Reps seats, "Do the Math: Expanding the Playing Field in 2006 Is Actually A Very, Very Smart Idea."

The GOP currently holds a 55-44 lead over Dems in the Senate, with one Independent voting Democratic. In 2006, 5 open Senate seats will be contested, with 14 Democratic senators seeking re-election and 14 incumbent Republicans seeking re-election. The Cook Political Report rates five races for Senate seats as tossups, with four of the seats currently held by Republicans.

-----

Full story, including embedded links, here: http://tinyurl.com/b8gfh

taking back our government one seat at a time,
Otter

sunflower- what is your solution. Do you want to leave now, save the rest of our American lives, and suddenly have a Shiite government in Iraq that unites with Iran in building bigger and better nuclear weapons?
What do you want? What is your solution.
I don't have one.
And, for what it's worth, I see kids every day in my job whose fathers are off at war as well. Pensacola is a Navy and Marine Corps town.
I have one young mother who just took a dishonerable discharge from the USAF so she would not be sent to Iraq and have to leave her 4 year old autistic child. Even though she wanted the discharge for her autistic child's welfare, it was still dishonorable.
I hate this war too, but the way to end it is not to criticize the one group of people who did NOT have the power, by the way, to stop it from happening.
We have a Republican president, a republican senate, and a republican house.
So, we criticize our fellow democrats, who are COMPLETELY out of power.
I'm not going to do that.
It's destructive.
No Democrat is going to say leave Iraq right now, let the civil war happen, and watch the carnage and results. ANd know, damned well know, that we let 2200 Americans die for nothing.
It took 50,000 Americans dieing in Vietnam before anyone was willing to do that, and, by the way, the person to make that decision was Richard M Nixon.
And that will be the answer to this war eventually, but not enough Americans have died yet to accept it.
It's about time, it's about tragedy, it's gonna be about loss.
It always was going to be about those things. Once it started, it always was.
That's what comes of looking a liar in his lieing eyes and trusting him, because you're afraid you'll be called unpatriotic.
I'll take unpatriotic every time. I never flew a flag on my car after 911, nor at the beginning of this war. Because this thing is just a disaster. And it always was going to be.

Posted by: oncall at January 3, 2006 04:47 PM

Right On OC!!!!

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 3, 2006 05:50 PM

Since you asked, and I agree it is a difficult challenge, my opinion is we should get out of there NOW. It is not a perfect solution by any means, but it will save American and probably Iraqi lives. I believe that no matter when we get out the problems you describe will develop soon after we leave. So what is the point in staying?

Personally, I don't think the Iraq war will be a big issue in 2007-08. I strongly suspect that Bush will be winding down our involvement in Iraq by 2007-08 - if only because the Shiite-dominated government may have asked us to leave, so that they can finish their business with Sunnis. Even the GOP knows that American troops need to leave, and it's only a matter of when, not if.

Moreover, as we learned in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004, Democratic primary voters often think differently than year-round, issue-oriented activists. They don't vote for a candidate based on idelological purity, anger, or emotion. Rather, they cast their vote on the basis of whether they can see that man or woman as being big enough to occupy the Oval Office, yet humble enough to still care about the little things that would make their individual lives better.

I don't agree that the Democratic and Republican parties are alike.

I don't see how anyone could live through these last five years and even suggest that. I honestly don't.

There's no way that Albert Gore would have dropped the ball on Osama to overthrow Saddam. There's no way that his Administration would have cut taxes on people who had more money than God, and left the country with deficits as far as the eye could see. When the recession hit, if Gore cut taxes, he would have cut taxes on the broad middle, on the people who actually buy things, with the hope of restarting the economy, and creating jobs. And I voted for Bill Bradley in the primary, not Gore.

With regard to 2008, if I have no other choice, then I too will pull the lever for Hillary. But I'm willing to bet that Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I just love it that these fool pundits are practically staging her coronation - because I think that both Hillary and these pundits are headed for a fall of biblical proportions. If there's one person who can unite the GOP in 2008, it's Hillary Clinton. And with a little help from some choice negative ads, Democratic voters will think twice before allowing her to be at the top of a Presidential ticket. Rarely has there been a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary; and once the primary campaign begins, she'll not be able to dismiss that baggage as the product of a "right wing conspiracy". If the Democrats really want to paint the GOP as the "party of corruption", then they can't run a candidate who represents a "first-family of corruption".

oncall!

exactly!

oncall- there is no point in staying. But the American people don't get that yet.
They are NOT ready to "cut and run" yet.
And no politician, Democrat or Republican, is going to want the public to see the disastrous results of our leaving that country right now.
They don't want the public to say this president and this congress allowed all those kids to die for nothing.
AND OUR DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP voted for it too. Almost unanimously.
Though, apparently, Hillary Clinton is to blame for the whole mess.
Sometimes this blog sounds like Rush Limbaugh- if you can't find anyone to blame for something, find a Clinton.
When enough Americans die in Iraq that the American people are willing to vote for candidates who say "declare victory and leave," that's what all the candidates will be saying. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, all of them.
And that is going to take more American deaths, it's going to continue to deplete our military, or economic resources, all of it.
Until the people are not too proud to quit. Vietnam took a long time. Iraq may too.
One thing I know is- the Republicans aren't interested at all in your opionins of when we should get out. The Democrats are becoming mildly interested in our opinions of the war, and I'm not going to slam the one group who will, eventually, be willing to listen to the people and leave.
If you can find me another political party to join that just might take over this government by the end of the year, let me know.
Until then, I'm not in the mood to diss any democrats.
They're in a really sh---y situation.

Matthew:

Are you inferring that the Clinton's are corrupt? If so, I am curious to know what sort of corruption they might have been involved in -- I never remember anything (other than a huge amount of innuendo and gossip repeated over and over and over again for six years)

Linda/Oncall:

There is no silver bullet in the Middle East, and a quick US withdrawal could reasonably be expected to create a situtation very dangerous to near term US interests and the long term interests of US allies in the region. So I expect reasonable people to disagree about the tactics of extracting ourselves and I don't expect anyone could spell out a play-by-play, and I wouldn't trust the judgement of anyone that is sure that one path or the other will lead to a good outcome. I think we will have to role with the punches on this one for a while. POTUS really messed us up, for what that is worth.

Ultimately, I am less concerned about how mass politics in the US alligns on the tactics of extricating ourselves from the bad situation we have made worse in the Middle East than how mass politics in the US alligns around our (and the rest of the world's) underlying entanglement, which, I think, is 90% about energy independence.

Chuck in Houston

Also, I have always liked Hillary Clinton, judging by her public statements, and Bill Clinton, but I think it is way early to speculate about party primaries for Presidential elections. For the record, last time around, I liked Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Dean and Clark. Each had their strengths and weaknesses, but I thought any one of them would have made a fine President (I supported Kerry as I have always followed his career from the Anti-Vietnam War movement through the Senate investigations of BCCI and Iran-Contra through the way he and McCain fought to resolve the POW-MIA issue such that we could recognize Vietnam). My favorite POTUS-aspiring Republcans are Nagel, Biden and Lieberman (sometimes I almost think Biden is a Democrat though).

Chuck in Houston

Oops -- Nagel = Hagel in the above. I should probably read my posts before I post them instead of after....

Chuck in Houston

New thread....

I've heard reasonable analyses that say our presence has become the issue and we should leave Iraq now, and other analyses that say we can't just leave en masse in the next month or so. Both views seem to have solid merit and I don't have the in-depth knowledge to be able to assess them. I do know that I would like the troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later; by the end of 2006 if not earlier seems reasonable to me but again, that's an uninformed assessment.

Chuck is right that reasonable people will disagree about the tactics of extracting ourselves and that no one should expect a play-by-play spelled out all in advance.

And I think Linda is right about holding the current administration and majority party in Congress responsible for the results of their actions.

And Linda, because there are a few posts that express a view different than yours does not mean that everyone else who posts at DCP automatically agrees with them and not with you. It is probably time for a cup of tea and book or a walk outside if it's nice out. We are here to help one another learn and encourage action.

Speaking of which, has everyone looked up where the peace actions/gatherings are being held near them on Jan 7th?

No silver bullet is right. But using political expediency as a reason to let people needlessly die is wrong (some may consider that to be naive-I consider it humane). However, given the realities, I think you are right. I don't think Hillary is to blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, and that is unfair to accuse me of that. However, I do think she is to be blamed for not really saying anything of substance about America's next moves in the war. I think Matt is probably right in one of his comments, as I suspect she is waiting for us to start moving troops out and then she can move onto other issues.

Not agreeing with a politician is not the same as swiftboating that politician as *that* is not what I am doing. I simply am expressing my frustration as regards to politician (as I said before, it can be the whole lot of them on this issue) who can not move beyond their political machinations.

since my post seems to make some here very uncomfortable...feel free to delete hilary and insert the wishy washy democrat of your choice there. thanks!

Oncall:

My basic approach to Iraq is that many ways must be considered -- especially in light of what Dwahzon just posted, following Murtha and many others, that our presence there may be creating more problems than it is solving. So for me, I look for some political leadership on the deeper reasons as to why, ultimately, we are involved in somebody else's business in the first place, which to my mind immediately raises the issue of the energy economy, which also happens to be one of the most important issues effecting the economy and the environment in the longer run.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck in Houston for Oncall:

Also, in that respect, due to complications arising from the radically new nature of our relations with the Middle East, I hesitate to impute motives to anyone's position on Iraq now, with the exception of persons directly involved in the decision to commit us to a course of military occupation at a time when any necessity for such a course was with every passing day less and less clear, and at a time when active measures were in place to continue to clarify whether or not any imminent threat existed, and indeed at a time when robust mechanisms were in place to reduce any such threat should it be found to exist. By such mechanisms, I mean the UN inspection program that was going great-guns when our POTUS decided to invade without even achieving a consensus from evenour closest allies that this was a wise course. On that basis, I think it is important to try and infer motives on the part of those people specifically, because the decision taken is almost impossible to conceive of as a good faith decision, i.e., one based on transparent logic consistent with established facts and espoused principles.

Chuck in Houston

PS: I've been reading this Lincoln book and it is messing with my style! Sorry!

Chuck,

Of course you are right, but unfortunately our country's leader for the last eight years has been placed in the White House in order to fill the coffers of the large oil companies. Fortunately the Congress did not cave in on ANWR. Still the idea of pursuing alternative energy sources has been given lip service by this admistration.

Oncall:

I remember for sure that the Kerry website in the Presidential Campaign had a fairly well articulated way forward on achieving energy independence, and I believe even the Clark and Edwards ones did too (and probably others to) even before the Democratic Convention. However, that has never been something that the American People have gotten interested in (except the symptoms of gas and heating oil prices) and that's why what I would like to see political leaders do is use our Iraq mess as leverage to start moving this issue in the public domain, as it is something we can do to really address "Iraq" writ-large, rather than argue about tactical questions that, really, no one knows the answers to (and hence plays right into the best-case scenario for Rovian tactics -- faith based, emotional, hysterical, panic-mongering, finger-pointing, divide-and-conquer, etc.).

Chuck in Houston

Posted by: chuck at January 3, 2006 06:35 PM

Pardon-gate is a scandal that materially involved not only Mr. Bill but Hillary's brother, and included the pardon of not only Marc Rich, but also a drug dealer, and a number of other unsavory folks. As far as I'm concerned, this is but one example of the "culture of corruption" that surrounded the Clintons.

From Wikipedia:

Final Day in Office Pardons
Clinton gave 140 pardons on his last day of office.[7] It is common practice for Presidents to grant a number of pardons shortly before leaving office, but Clinton's last day list was more numerous than those of previous presidents and some find his pardons more controversial.

Carlos Vignali was pardoned for cocaine trafficking.

Almon Glenn Braswell, was pardoned of fraud, perjury and tax evasion convictions as part of a mail order scam. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective case for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. This pardon also gained notice because shortly after the pardon was issued it was revealed that Braswell was once again under investigation for tax evasion.[8]

Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Several months after her last donation, emails reveal Republican attorney Lewis I "Scooter" Libby asked her to approach Clinton about pardoning Marc Rich. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the states. According to ABC news, Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton.And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.

From CNN.com

"The 176 people who were pardoned or had prison sentences commuted by Clinton on his last day in office include: An accused tax swindler who is the former husband of a major Clinton donor; two felons who paid Clinton's brother-in-law $400,000 to lobby on their behalf; and the former president's own half-brother."

"Adding fuel to the firestorm is the fact that some of the pardons bypassed the usual Justice Department procedures. "

"The web of close Clinton associates linked with the pardon requests extends into the successful New York senate campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton, putting the former first lady directly in the line of fire."

"The pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich triggered the initial barrage of criticism, opening the door to a federal investigation."

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/pardons/overview.html

Matthew:

The president has a constitutionally guaranteed power of pardoning, so pardons are not intrinsicallly corrupt, and I suppose each case has its own set of particulars. I would only think of a pardon as corrupt if there was a direct quid-pro-quo, like pardoning someone that might rat you out or pardoning someone so that they would give you money. I am not aware of any Clinton pardons that involved a "quid-pro-quo," but I could be mistaken.

Chuck in Houston

For an example of actual corruption, see the next thread.

Chuck in Houston

Matthew:

So it looks like it's down to Hillary's brother's case, as I know the Marc Rich case is complicated and is difficult to construe as a quid-pro-quo. Has it been demonstrated that the Clinton's knew about the relationship between those guys and Hillary's brother prior to the pardon? It may be that her brother is the corrupt one. But that is simply speculation on my part.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck,

I can't agree. Clinton was a pig, but he was our pig. And as pigs go, he might have been a nicer variety of pig, and definitely a smarter, more civilized pig, than the GOP version. But he was not an ethical man, not by a long shot. And either Hillary was completely out of the loop or she was complicit in whatever machinations were taking place - like the pimping of the Lincoln Bedroom. This is where I insist on calling a spade a spade - and making the point that "the emperor's new clothing" act is not going to fly in 2007-08. You can't claim to be a party representing virtue when you have Bill and Hillary leading it; and even if you try to claim it, you can't sell it, not in this media environment.

Matthew:

As always, I respect what you say. Of course, the last thing in the world I would want to claim is to represent virtue, per se. Of course, also, the concept of pimping the Lincoln bedroom is a bit more than my imagination can get its metaphorical arms around! There has to be a screen play in that somewhere....

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't want perfection in politicians, but I want principles, and I want action, and I beleive I got both from the Clinton administration. In that sense, I can't ever recall an occasion where Bill Cinton lied to me over the TV or web about something in the public sphere. I do not begrudge legal fund-raising -- how else can someone win an election in this country? By osmosis? When has that ever happened? I don't like that system but I don't see any other on the horizon.

Again, I hope you (and Oncall) don't take any of this in any way personal -- some times I re-read my posts and they seem much more strident than I had intended. I think we are disagreeing about some pretty important and valid points and I am very glad that we have this blog to test ideas out on.

Chuck in Houston

Matthew:

Also, I would never in my life characterize President Clinton as a pig. I've read accounts to where he (and Kohl) had sort of sloppy table manners and liked to eat a lot, but, outside of that limited sense, again, I would never characterize him as a pig. I always felt he was lending his not inconsiderable weight to push the wheel in the right direction and he never spoke down to us and he fought hard. I will always respect him as a president for all of that.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck,

Rest assured, I don't take what you say in any way as a personal attack. Your point is well taken about discussing tactical arguments.

I do agree with you about the electorate's myopia as regards alternative energy sources. When it becomes less expensive for Americans to pursue those sources we will. Those "expenses" can be regarded in either money or human lives. Gary Hart and Al Gore are the most recent examples of national politicians, that I can recall, not afraid to make this a central issue of their campaign. Yes John Kerry did have a position paper on this issue as well, but I don't recall it as being an important part of his campaign. I may be mistaken.

Oncall,

Kerry is the first candidate to have paid ads about his alternative energy policy, environment, with events around the country targeted to particular vulnerabilities in those regions. Many of them.

Connecting the dots of energy independence with job creation, national security, health care and small business is key for Kerry, and Teresa.

A big problem for the campaign with lack of media is the Dems didn't know what he and we were doing, and would rather assume the worst.

Marjorie G:

And that is where we have to pick up the ball and move it down-field!

Go Motown! Go Brooklyn!

Chuck in Houston

Now Motown is something everyone can believe in!

Clinton was an important veto pen, but not a moral compass. He's all about political convenience. The world believed in his good intentions and rhetoric, and as a symbol, pretty wonderful compared to what we have, Bush as most hated man in the world.

A good example of Bill is how he wanted Kerry to play ball and agree with gay rights amendment, something Kerry would not do.

Marjorie G:

I've sat here and thunk and thunk and I can't come up with a re-post to that! I've got sunshine, on a cloudy day. when it's cold outside, I've got the month of May....

Chuck in Houston

PS: Where it never seems to be cold....

Marjorie:

There is a bit more to Brother Bill in that respect than you allude to, to my mind.

Chuck in Houston

My 12:24 post was with respect to Marjorie's 12:15 post, for the record (whichever).

Chuck in Houston

Marjorie G:

So, just to challenge that, does "political conveneince" mean increasing wilderness areas? skewing taxes in favor of working people? working to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide? increasing the minimum wage? protecting unions? trying to provide normal health care? Going to war as a last resort? If so, I guess I would settle for political convenience.

Chuck in Houston

But also, again, if you put that in the context of a rabid legislative branch that hates all of those things I enumerated above, then, yes, I'd have to agree, that it only comes down to veto power.

Chuck in Houston

And, of course, that begs the question: "How do we get that veto power?"

Chuck in Houston

And, what do we do when we lose even that?

Chuck in Houston

Chuck,

Not to be unrealistic and unpolitical, I think Clinton was necessary for where we were, with the GOP menace in waiting. Not to argue with you, at all, or with his list of good intentions.

Few others could have maddened them. I do understand expedience. Still, a little too much about manipulative. Guess I didn't like the theater then, or in memory.

We could always look to his many goals that we liked, then, and say he's trying. Assumed the rest of the country agreed with us. Shows how easily led and impressionable, to go with whoever has the mic, and now, madmen.

Off now. Happy New Year, Chuck.

I can't sleep so I am responding to Marjorie's post about Kerry's ads about alternative energy. The thing is I never saw one of those, nor many other ads as JK did not run much of a T.V. or radio campaign in Illinois. Like I said, I may be mistaken, and I guess I was.

Marjorie G.:

Interesting re-post and thanks. Me, I did like the theater, and I guess I did not see it as manipulative. I saw playfulness there, where I did not see serious intent. Everywhere else I saw tough, purposeful movement. And we were the country back then. And I liked the fact that he got their goat. So I back the man from here to kingdom come. That's just my nature and, oddly enough, I think that is what it takes to win -- we stand by our own and we face down those that are against us, as long as we don't have to give up our principles, or, as some would say, values.

Chuck in Houston

I'm a rolling stone
All alone and lost
For a life of sin
I have paid the cost
When I pass by
All the people say
Just another guy
On the lost highway

Just a deck of cards
And jug of wine
And a woman's lies
Makes a life like mine
Oh the day we met
I went astray
I started rolling down
That lost highway...

(Hank Williams)

I was just a lad
nearly twenty-two
neither good nor bad
Just a kid like you
And now I'm lost
To late to pray
Lord I paid the cost
On the lost highway

Now boys don't start
To rambling around
On this road of sin
You are sorrow bound
Take my advice
Or you'll curse the day
You started rolling down
That lost highway

Chuck,

It's obviously ok for Democrats and Progessives to disagree. We're going to be doing a lot of it between now and the spring of 2008.

Clinton's Presidency looks much better today because of Bush's Presidency, and the mess that Dubya has made of the nation's standing in the world, and of the Federal Budget. And Bill Clinton possesses a superior intellect; my view is also that, given the right circumstances, his heart was likely to be found, metaphorically speaking, in the right place.

That said, Clinton was a completely political animal - and a man whose passions repeatedly got the best of him. One can only speculate on what he and Dick Morris had to talk about after they exhausted the subject of political strategy. And all of this has to reflect on Hillary - who remains married to him, and who may be, in my evaluation, even more of a political animal than he is (minus Bill's geniality and charm). As a constituent (who, by the way, wasn't given the option of voting for another candidate in a primary), I never had the sense that Hillary gave a damn about what I thought - and this was never truer than during the run-up to the Iraq War. She knew better - and if she still believes that one, I've got a bridge to sell her in Baghdad.