Frontrunners notoriously don't stay in that category unchallenged for a couple of reasons (not original with me)

1) If someone seems like too much of a "done deal", voters in early states notoriously say "we'll just see about that". Don't forget that the 2004 Iowa caucuses were supposed to be between Gephardt (from nearby state) and Howard Dean, who had momentum.

2) The old saying is "who the press builds up they can also tear down". Edwards has been through all this before, recently. And with all due respect to Hillary, 2007 ain't 1991, and she has yet to prove she has Bill's skills (being the only one to show up at a local event, speaking ability, etc). Not to mention that some "inevitable" candidates have done poorly in the primary or general, and no amount of money will win over skeptics.

If money truly were all that mattered, the WE'RE ALL REAL TIRED OF CAREER POLITICIANS Jan. 1996 ads from Gordon Smith would have elected him. But what he and Ron said in their first duo town hall meeting here in Salem after 1996 was that they were doing this partly as pennance for complaints from people who said they just decided to turn off their TVs until the January election was over. Money spent on ads few people watch can be money down the drain.

While I would have to agree that money talks, locally, this isn't always the case. Portland is a fine example of wealthy people failing to gain votes for their candidacies or measures.

Hillary clearly has a superior advantage, but I think that others in the pack will greatly affect the debate and the course of things to come.

I believe that the key to the 2008 Election will be two key things:

1) The Iraq War 2) the Younger generation in this country

Hillary has a distinct disadvantage on this 1st part and I am not certain how much of an advantage she has on the 2nd. People are yearning for someone new. Hillary might be new enough... but I wouldn't discount other candidates so soon.

We can only hope that the voters are not influenced by all the hype that money can buy. While I personally admire Ms. Clinton, I am not looking forward to hearing about the blue dress issue again. Barak simply lacks enough experience, He is magnificent VP material. Which brings us to Edwards who should be seriously considered. Against the war, for the American people, this is the candidate we should be supporting.

Unfortunately I agree with the author's analysis.

The most frustrating thing is that even with all the anti-war anti-Bush sentiment in this country, I am confident that Hillary will be beaten soundly in the 2008 general election contest against either Guliani or McCain.

I guess I agree that the prez is a reflection of power dynamics. Money, representing capital, is a big part of it. Someone wanting to get elected doesn't have that much discretion. Hillary Clinton knows what she has to do/say to be elected, and she does it. If she wins, she'll do what she needs to do to stay in power. She'll have some pet progressive projects, that will have a small positive impact ... and she'll work them to the benefit of her business and other constituents.

So we elect a white, protestant FEmale, Karol?

Hillary is not only pro-war, she is, as Pat Ryan correctly points out, a Likudnik and deeply in the pocket of AIPAC. So is John Edwards.

Why is everybody so quick to write off Dennis Kucinich, the only truly progressive candidate in the field?

Why is everybody so quick to write off Dennis Kucinich, the only truly progressive candidate in the field?

This is just a guess, but I assume the reason Kucinich is "written off" is because my dog has a better chance of being elected President than Dennis Kucinich.

Hillary cannot win the general election.

There are too many people who hate the name "Clinton". I know many of them. They would sooner cut of their own arms than vote for a Clinton.

The nation is ready for a Woman leader - but not Hillary Clinton.

If she wins the primaries we will have a republican as our next president.

Of course, barring a "Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert" ticket - I am not sure I like the current runners much across the board.

Jeff, Do you think money can buy the caucuses, or just the primaries? If not, would you say there just aren't enough caucuses to make a difference in the long-run?

On Hilary's--and every other senator's--stance on Iraq, if the Senate doesn't actually DO something, I'd say a non-senate Dark Horse could make a real play for the nomination. Public memory and forgiveness may erase everything that's happened until now, but non-binding resolutions and endless talk talk talk have got to give way to action pretty soon or no one in the take anyone Senate should be taken seriously.

Gotta learn to proofread...meant to say:

...non-binding resolutions and endless talk talk talk have got to give way to action pretty soon or no one in the Senate should be taken seriously.

Hillary Clinton is an even more repulsive candidate than John Kerry, if that was even possible. Let's just remember here that many people voted for George Bush in the last election, not because they liked him, but because they didn't want Kerry as president. The last thing we need is a repeat of that scenario. The same Republican activists who were indifferent to John Kerry turn beet red and start frothing at the mouth when you mention Hillary. Her nomination would prompt the kind of Republican activism that has not been seen up to this point. Any Republican, except for, say John Ashcroft or a clone of Adolph Hitler, would beat Hillary in a landslide. I think the ideal candidate for 08, on either side, would have to be somebody WITHOUT the taint of the Iraq war. Hillary has to reconcile that, and I don't think she can. She also has to deal with the fact that many progressives are extremely anti-Wal Mart...yet she sat on their board of directors for years. That, in and of itself, should be enough to cost her the nomination.

Jack, tell me you don't mean Rudy Guiliani...

Either Jeff is entirely correct, that we are in the 4th inning, and things are well along, and we'd best get ready to support Hillary in the general election,

Or, as LT and others have pointed out, front runners are never heard from again, and he is wrong.

I for one expect to feel disenfranchised either way, without being able to vote on it. I just hope someone who can excite voters ends up being our candidate. So far, Hillary isn't exciting.

Seems to me that what Dean stumbled across with the netroots in 2003 could prove a much bigger advantage in 2007. The political establishment is still trying to come to grips with how the internet can impact fundraising. The ability to contact millions of potential donors with the click of a mouse button, and to collect $10 and $20 donations with minimal overhead/transaction costs can go a long way to leveling an early advantage among the usual Big Money Donors.

You may need "millions" to compete in each state primary, but Edwards or Obama (or anyone else who fires up enough support in the netroots) might be able to collect enough to get through the first half-dozen primaries. A good showing there will probably spur additional contributions once everyone else sees they're an actual winner.

Of course, they could flame out early. But imagine what happens if Hillary, with all the name recognition and money and staff, places a close third in New Hampshire? Suddenly she no longer looks so inevitable.

If Gore steps in, I could see a three- or four-person race come January.

I've found it interesting the number of people who've recently said to me something along the lines of "I have to say I'm warming up to Hillary." or "I'm a bit surprised, but I think I'm becoming a Hillary supporter." or "Hillary's not perfect, but she's a strong woman, and we need that."

I'm not among the Hillary fans, but I don't dislike Hillary. I simply like others (John Edwards) much better.

Hillary's got a history of winning people over. Yes, she has some challenges. But I think she's the person to beat.

Anyone "warming up" to Hillary may find the following phrases to be useful cocktail party chit chat:

I find myself not really caring about a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi's more or less, and so I find myself warming up to Hillary.

or

Those 3350 dead US soldiers probably did not have that much to live for anyway, and so I find myself warming up to Hillary.

This analysis left out the all-important Emilie Boyles/Vladimir Golovan factor.

Perhaps we should take Al Gore at his word when he says he isn't interested in running again. Perhaps he can do more for the nation and the world talking about environmental issues than running a campaign.

Just a thought.

Humm? Seems to me I recently heard that Mrs. Clinton was getting ready to run as a new 'Margaret Thatcher.' I think that would play better in the republican than the democratic party. Personally, I don't want anyone named Clinton or Bush anywhere near my ballot choices. Please, enough is more than enough.

I will not vote for (or against) anybody on immaterial basis like name, race, gender. I will not support Hillary Clinton, I'd probably vote for her against the Republican nut bag that'll win their primary, but I will not knock on a door, phone call, or write something nice. A dozen years ago I didn't mind her and even admired a couple things she got up to, she has spent all that capital long ago as Sen Clinton. You'd be making little mistake to figure that she's GW Bush in a dress.

If you want what we've been doing for the reasons we've been doing them, then Hillary's your girl. If Karole wants to vote for Hillary because of her gender, she can knock her self out, but I really can't think of a much more bigotted reason to do so. Personally, I'd vote for a green lesbian Martian if it were legal and the politics worked for me. Is it a sad commentary that all the women who could do a better job than any of the men running aren't running? Yes, but they're not and that doesn't make Hillary a good choice by some kind of default.

I like Dennis because he'll push for the left, I don't like Dennis on guns, but I also don't have to worry about voting for him for President.

Jeff's points should be well taken, there is an actual danger of Hillary running away with it. She'll be at risk with the press when they get tired of Ms Inevitible and there's some push back from outside. There still is a lot of time, but it may be short for showing support.

About 1984--Mondale won the nomination, but not the Oregon primary. That was perhaps the last hotly contested presidential nomination in Oregon. The "establishment" (many pct. people, most in party leadership or elected officials) supported Mondale, to some extent even saying "the train is leaving the station, better get on". So how on earth could those Hart insurgents get 59% of the primary vote?

So those Hart insurgents became delegates to the national convention, became active in state party (state central comm., chairs of standing committees like Rules, ran for if not elected to major party offices, etc.).

And all these years later, when 2 of those people see each other after a period of many years, it can be "old home week". All the money in the world can't change the part of politics that is about building relationships. And people who have known each other for years like that can talk to someone who has come into a position of power or whatever and say of a local/state issue "Can I talk to you for a few minutes about...?".

So while it may be true that when the Democrats leave Denver in 2008 Hillary is the nominee, I'm not sure that will happen. Lots of time between now and then. And the platform will also be interesting.

How many who read this know that the reason so many things in Oregon are named McNary is that he was a long term US Senator from Oregon AND once VP nominee--1940 with Willkie? That was an interesting convention for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that internationalist Willkie left the convention with a party platform that was clearly isolationist.

Even now with everything supposedly decided very early, this election could be more contested than anyone expected, we may not know the nominee a year from now, or even by Easter. Stranger things have happened.

Looks like I'm going to have to vote for Nader for the third time. Hillary hasn't given me any reasons to vote for her but a lot of reasons to vote against her, including the fact that Big Money apparently adores her.

Here's the big elephant in the room that nobody is talking about: If Hillary becomes president, the list of presidents in our history books from the late 80s until whenever Hillary's done will look like this: Bush Clinton Bush Clinton

That almost smacks me as aristocracy at its finest, and I don't think our founding fathers ever had anything like that in mind.

John, before you get out your old Nader buttons, please get active in someone else's primary campaign. The nomination is not a done deal until it is official---and that is 2008, not 2007!

Don't worry, I plan to work for alternatives. At least in the presidential primary we will have a choice of candidates, contrary to most Oregon races, where the parties abhor giving voters any choices before the general election.

But if Hillary wins it and doesn't build a solid record of support for the environment and the social safety net, you can count me out. She's been in the Senate for 6 years now and has yet to demonstrate that she cares about anything besides becoming President.

Many people seem to think that Bill CLinton's populairty and political skills can help Hillary win, but I don't think they are transferable. His appeal to swing voters, especially in the mdiwest and south, is something she lacks. Even Clintonites who must realize this, like Carville and Begella, aren't going to abandon the CLintons.

Also, Hillary's position as the one woman candidiate along with EMILYS List support is huge. In 1994, I was a college intern for Ed Lindquist for Conress, who Mike Koepetski had endorsed as his would be successor in the 5th CD. Ed was the early front runner, but Catherine Webber had EMILYS List money/activism, and she won the primary with 40% of the vote, while Ed and three other men running divided the rest of the vote.

There are Democratic woman like my mother who can't stand Hillary, but I'm guessing that Hillary will still win a majority, perhaps big majority, of women primary voters. If so, I don't think she can be stopped.

About 1984

Has as much relationship to politics today as 1984 did to 1960. There are few, if any, lessons to be learned from that era that aren't the same ones you could learn looking at the election of 1920.

There are Democratic woman like my mother who can't stand Hillary, but I'm guessing that Hillary will still win a majority, perhaps big majority, of women primary voters. If so, I don't think she can be stopped.

I think this is spot on. Despite the lack of enthusiasm among many male party activists, Hillary does have an enthusiastic base.

Its far too late for Al Gore to take on Hillary. He may have the same phone numbers, but he will be calling through the left-overs. Someone will challenge Hillary, but it won't be based on the ability to raise money from the power brokers.

find myself not really caring about a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi's more or less, and so I find myself warming up to Hillary.

or

Those 3350 dead US soldiers probably did not have that much to live for anyway, and so I find myself warming up to Hillary.

I hope no one is stupid enough to blame Hillary or any other Democratic candidate for the war in Iraq. It was entirely a Republican creation and Hillary has zero responsibility for it. You can look at Hillary's vote and ask yourself what values it might reflect. But I suspect it was more a political vote than an ideological one.

the best organized (this is generally also best funded but not always) candidate has always won.

Campaigns that start with a lot of money often get fat and don't have a very strong organization. Its not how much money you raise, but how well you spend it. Hillary's challenge is going to be to not stumble in Iowa and New Hampshire with an over-reliance on paid staff rather than building a base of enthusiastic volunteers. And if she does stumble, some other candidate will be able to raise enough money to challenge her regardless of how big her bank account is.

Using the baseball analogy. If Hillary takes a lead, that bank account will give her the bullpen to hold it. But if she falls behind early, she can be challenged by any number of people. All the challengers need is enough money to organize strong campaigns in Iowa and/or New Hampshire. That does not take huge bucks.

Great conversation thread here. I too have many problems with Clinton, not the least of which is she cannot win the general. I'm sorry, but it's true. I was raised in Oklahoma and have visited all but three states in my life, I have friends all over the country and every one of them (even the hard-core Dems) in the South and MidWest say there is no way they will vote for Hillary. I really hope someone other than Hillary gets the nomination because frankly I'm tired of volunteering and voting for the least objectionable of two candidates and losing all the time. McCain and (unfortunately)Guilliani would both beat Hillary in the general, I feel certain.

I love Obama, but he needs to stay in the Senate a while longer, get more experience and raise his profile through his work on legislation. Too many folks haven't heard of him and the curve is too big to get his name out there AND overcome some of the problems folks will have with him. And PLEASE don't suggest he be a VP---that is a waste of the man's intellect and talents...he has a future. He just has to play it right.

Edwards so far is the way I'm leaning, although I'd jump ship in a nano-second if Gore decided to jump in the race, but I think it's doubtful he'll do so.

Kucinich---what can I say? He's smart, progressive, green, and there is absolutely no way he can win---probably because he's smart, progressive and green. So there we are.

Great comments, folks! I love this site! Keep up the good fight!

Looks like I'm going to have to vote for Nader for the third time. Hillary hasn't given me any reasons to vote for her but a lot of reasons to vote against her

Remind, what exactly is the reaosn to vote for Ralph Nader? Seriously. And I voted for him once myself. That was before I realized he was an egotistical jerk who cared squat about actual governance.

Wait a minute, wait a minute!!!

Are you saying, then, that all that talk about Republicans controlling voting machines in key states, guaranteeing Republican victories in Presidential elections, was a bunch of crap? Or is that gonna be whipped out again if Hillary (or someone else with a "D") loses? It's so easy, isn't it?

Bob Tiernan

Remind, what exactly is the reaosn to vote for Ralph Nader? Seriously. And I voted for him once myself. That was before I realized he was an egotistical jerk who cared squat about actual governance.

But then he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever governing. If that was why you voted for him you were deluding yourself. People voted for Nader because he was right, not because he was ever going to win or because he was qualified to govern if he did.

Nader has always been an egotistical jerk. Why should anyone care? It is probably one of the qualities that has made him an extremely effective advocate. It takes a pretty big ego to stand up to largest automotive company in the world and tell them they don't know how to build a safe automobile. Unlike most public figures, he isn't a character who has been carefully scripted to make himself appealing as a television show personality. Which means that people who think running for President is a personality contest probably shouldn't be voting for him. Neither should people who think an election is just about selecting the next President.

Grant, It wasn't just EMILY. Ed came in 2nd, John Ball came in 3rd, and there were two other male candidates. The total of the vote for male candidates in that race was 33485 votes That's what can happen in a multi-candidate primary, no matter what level or who is running!

There were those of us who had known Ed L. since he was a legislator (how well do endorsements work on people who already know a candidate?), and there were people who supported Catherine (the kind of grass roots support money can't buy) because they had known her for years, and because she was in many ways a more appealing female candidate for Congress than the women who ran in the 1980s.

But don't forget, it was Darlene Hooley who became the first woman elected from the 5th District--I think it was because Darlene was a better general election candidate.

And that goes to the larger question: sure women candidates have lots of support, but they should never believe all women will vote for them simply because they are women.

Interesting how in the progressive community there is no discussion on Hilary's conection to Walmart

So, Paul, we shouldn't look at issues? We should say "this campaign is the best funded, therefore I should support them because they are going to win anyway"? If that is the case, why have debates? Why not just report their FEC results and leave it at that? For that matter, why vote in a primary if all that matters is fund raising?

you'll see that the best funded campaign almost always won.

I think you are mistaking cause and effect. The winning campaign is almost always the best funded after the fact. But we aren't talking about their bankroll a year and half from now. Your historical list leaves off candidates with significant early bankrolls who fell flat.

Mondale did beat Hart, but at this point in 1984 Hart was a not even a factor. Mondale is really a case in point of a war-chest making a campaign fat. He had a ton of money very early, but once he lost the New Hampshire primary to Hart it became a two candidate race.

In 1988, Dukakis was not an overwhelming leader in early fundraising. I think several candidates had larger bankrolls at this point in the election cycle than he did. He wasn't even the favorite, Gary Hart was. You also left out Gore, Gephart and Simon who all won primaries, as well as guys like Babbit who didn't.

Bush in 1988 is another case in point, he failed to win the Iowa caucuses and was behind in New Hampshire, despite the support of Ronald Reagan and an overwhelming fundraising lead.

It is hard to point to a campaign where the presumptive leader among non-incumbents, no matter how large a bankroll, was able to tie up the nomination without a fight.

I'm quite shocked to see Hillary getting such little support here, and very surprised that nobody's even trying to defend her. Should I assume that a severe distrust of Hillary is something that progressives and conservatives have in common? That would be wild, if a hatred of Hillary ends up being the one thing that could unite a bitterly divided electorate...

Guess what? I will vote for Hillary. I will vote for any Democrat for president. In the primary? I will vote for Hillary...not that it will matter by the time Oregon gets their vote in.

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination? I will vote for the democratic nominee....Period!

I can't take another Republican.

In state races, I will consider crossing the ticket. In national races??? Please. I will vote my party. Again...PERIOD!

(the Iraq war) was entirely a Republican creation and Hillary has zero responsibility for it.

That's complete B.S.

Hillary lacked the courage to stand up to popular opinion created by a transparent propaganda campaign that anyone with a tiny particle of critical thinking ability and mild skepticism could see through.

Hillary caved fast and hard to the pressure to appease popular opinion.

Whi did so many of us know that the case for war was crap, but highly educated, powerful, informed people like Hillary were conned. The answer is that she wasn't conned. She bent to popular opinion. Like most of our Senate and House, she lacks anything even resembling courage, honesty or quality of character.

I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination (whimper whimper)and continue to dream of actually wanting to vote for a candidate, rather than picking the lesser of two evils.

Hillary caved fast and hard to the pressure to appease popular opinion.

She is a politician. But it is complete BS to suggest she has any responsibility for Iraq. The Republicans had the votes and with or without the support of any Democrat we were going to war. Its just playing into the Republican's hands to portray the war as a bipartisan effort or to assign responsibility to Democrats who didn't aggressively oppose it from the start. Talk about eating our own.

There is very little love for her in any quarter,

I don't think that is true. I think you will find a fair amount of enthusiasm from a lot of women. That just isn't reflected here where most of the posters are men.

The candidates like Hillary who can raise huge sums of money should be supported because they are superior to us. They have the support of corporate greedheads because they have good Karma, and therefore they must have done something to deserve it in a past life.

As Ross Williams says, Hillary has no responsibility for foreign policy; it's not like she's a Senator or anything. She couldn't possibly have worked hard for a moral cause; morality doesn't sell these days, and war-mongering does (or at least did).

We should all thank Hillary for guiding us in the "right" direction. Concepts like peace, economic democracy, and/or civil liberties are outmoded and should be discarded by our candidates, as Hillary has taught us.

Let's all get behind the best corporate fund-raiser. And forget people like Nader or Kucinich, who might be "moral" but are not politically viable (i.e., they can't raise huge amounts of corporate cash).

Jonathon (less than) Swift -

The folks that voted for Nader in Florida, instead of Gore, have more responsibility for the invasion of Iraq than Hillary. They had the ability to prevent it, she didn't. They could have saved all the Iraqi's who died, the American soldiers who died and all the thousands of other who were maimed. But they chose to be self-indulgent instead. They voted for someone whose ideas they agree with, when they could have acted to prevent power from being handed over to the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush.

And forget people like Nader or Kucinich, who might be "moral" but are not politically viable

There are plenty of good reasons to cast a meaningless vote for a meaningful candidate. But there is no good reason to cast a meaningful vote for a meaningless candidate. Why not just vote for yourself? Aren't you "moral" enough?

Jack Bog writes: Note to self: Check into reserving the domain name democratsforrudy.org.

Just what the world needs: more phony "Democrats for X" groups created by people who aren't Democrats. At this point, Jack Bogdanski is about as much of a Democrat as Lyndon LaRouche.

That's right Ross. I forgot that Gore had such an impeccable record as an anti-imperialist. Thanks for reminding me. Those videos that show Gore "debating" that his foreign policy would be essentially the same as Bush's must have been doctored...by Nader.

I also had mis-remembered that Gore actually won, but he didn't have the guts (or the desire) to oppose his Republican brethren's grab for power. So again, thanks for reminding me of the real history. That was also Nader's fault. It's so empowering to have someone to blame, even if it doesn't match the reality.

Basically Nader is responsible for every crime committed by US presidents since the beginning of the "war" in '91. Nader killed all those hundreds of thousands of children who were the victims of the sanctions. Nader is also responsible for the two month long bombing of the Yugoslavian population and the bombings in Somalia and Iraq during the '90's. And if Hillary et al support a bombing of Iran, it'll be Nader's fault.

One thing about Hillary, she'll create plenty of plausible deniability. No one will be able to blame her, even if she's responsible. One more reason to support her.

Jonathon (not so) Swift -

You have difficulty reading. I didn't blame Nader for anything, I laid responsibility on the people who voted for him in Florida.

I don't think Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. Perhaps you need to believe that in order to wash your hands of the blood of all of Cheney and Bush's victims. Time for you to step up and accept responsibility for the results of making the "moral" choice. Its easy to be morally pure when someone else pays the consequences in blood.

But at the very least, have the integrity to stop trying to blame a bunch of powerless Democratic politicians for what happened.

Who has blood on his hands?

I only hope that others have not allowed the truth to disappear down the memory hole. Here's the truth about your sainted Gore: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm

Wednesday, 28 June, 2000, 00:32 GMT 01:32 UK Gore: Saddam must go

Saddam Hussein: Indictment for war crimes? By Jeff Phillips in Washington

US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

From Christian Century Christian Century, Oct 25, 2000 by James M. Wall: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_29_117/ai_66809979

Al Gore and George W. Bush concentrate on winning support from senior citizens who, they presume, are more concerned with the price of their own prescription drugs than with Iraq, where over 1 million people have died as a result of the sanctions (according to the World Food Organization and UNICEF). Children under five account for 600,000 of these deaths.

The Catholic peace organization Pax Christi USA is gathering signatures for an ad in the New York Times that will make this case prior to the election by asking, "How many more Iraqi children must die?" The sanctions have blocked needed medical supplies from the people of Iraq, while damage to almost all of Iraq's infrastructure, a deliberate military policy during the gulf war, has not been repaired. According to Pax Christi, raw sewage flows in the streets. Broken water purification systems increasingly contaminate the water.

Economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990 during the administration of candidate George W. Bush's father, and continue under the administration of candidate Al Gore's boss, Bill Clinton. In a CBS interview with Leslie Stahl, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked: "We have heard that a half million children have died [as a result of economic sanctions against Iraq]--more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright's response: "I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

Bush/Gore debate on Iraq: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01051.html

(Gore): I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations.
But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further.

Think about it: Gore was a foreign policy hawk who chose Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate.

Who has blood on his hands?

Anyone who put their personal "morality" ahead of the practical results of turning power over to Cheney and Bush.

Think about it: Gore was a foreign policy hawk who chose Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate.

Bill Clinton was a foreign Policy hawk who chose Al Gore as his Vice-president. He didn't invade Iraq.

Has anyone noticed Hillary's position on an attack on Iran (while addressing AIPAC)? This woman is a fascist, and her supporters are fascist apologists and sympathizers.