Clinton & Biden stand out in debate!

[top gun]

It appeared to be a stand out performance by Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden in the Democratic debate in New Hampshire just concluded on CNN.

John Edwards and Senator Obama were major players however John Edwards while making some legitimate points attempted to separate himself from the pack by being somewhat more confrontational. This may have hurt as much as it helped in the overall impression of things. Senator Obama made calm rational points but did not show the passion usually expected from him.

I'd make this point for Senator Joe Biden. I don't know if he has the resources and the campaign machine to go all the way, but by his answers, his experience, conviction, and rational common sense he certainly looked very strong and presidential.

At one point when the subject turned to the recent vote to continue funding the war in Iraq (which Biden had voted yes on) Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

At another point when the talk turned to a presidents ability to just make anything happen both he and Senator Clinton chimed in one after the other saying... People think that a president can just do anything they want. But there's a Congress and other factors involved. Senator Biden concluded with... Being president requires you to occasionally be practical, implying that this was not one of President Bush's strong suits. The obvious common sense of that statement drew laughs from the crowd.

Senator Clinton looked rested and was steady, friendly and well versed on each and every subject and question posed and seemed to strive to be sure that the audience understood that everyone on the stage was respected and all fighting for the same things be it sometimes by different approaches.

It's my opinion that the other four candidates are truly out of the running for the nomination and it would be best to start seeing them fall away to give more time for examination of the top four.

[drippinhun]

Tell me again why the Democrats couldn't have continually sent bills that would have allowed just enough funds to bring our troops home and not a dime more? They could have attached instructions demanding this. And if Bush wanted to veto them fine, send another one and tell the people that Bush is playing chicken with the troops' welfare and they (Congress) are not going to budge.

The Democrats proved how they lack backbone.

[Bunz]

While I did not watch the debate I was out working, I am not surprised to hear that Clinton and Biden were in the lead. Obama is still the darkhorse candidate and keep in mind he only has 2 senate years under his belt. If Obama doesnt work this election season you will for sure see him again.
Drippinhun, I think it is a bit unfair to cast the democrats as spineless in this sense. Because continually sending bills that they know Bush will veto will backfire. It would be all to easy for the GOP to spin it against the democrats to say they are holding up the entire congress in frivilous bills they know will never pass nor do they have the votes for a veto. They have sent thier symbolic bills they know will be vetoed. Keep in mind, Democracy is about compromise and despite a rift between the legislative and executive branches they still have to work together to pass laws.

[drippinhun]

Bunz, this declaration of their cowardness did not start with that particular vote. However, this was the defining vote since this was the primary issue the Democratic Party was voted back into the majority.

Grant you I have a biased attitude having been a lifelong Democrat and watching them help authorize Bush's authority to conduct this nebulous war on terror in the first place. Then when they gave him the green light with Iraq, that was the final straw. Now claiming they didn't know that the evidence presented to them had been concocted, I was in shock thinking, "Didn't the Gulf of Tonkin affair teach you why maximum scrutiny when someone plans on sending our young into harm's way is the least you can do as a representative?"

I would rather see the party lose its majority to make a principled stand instead of holding onto power. This is why they command very little respect from me.

[lipmonkey]

I didn't see anything great come out of it.

Edwards tried to play the attack dog but came across as weak in that department.

Obama isn't the great public speaker I have been hearing from his supporters.

Richardson came across as rambling.

Mike Gravel from Alaska needs to go back to Alaska.

Dennis Kucinich made a few good points but he's about as exciting as a loaf of stale bread.

Chris Dodd about the same Kucinich.

Joe Biden was the most impressive on the issues.

Clinton is playing it cool and still hasn't said anything that will come back to haunt her.

I give the edge to Biden.

[top gun]

Tell me again why the Democrats couldn't have continually sent bills that would have allowed just enough funds to bring our troops home and not a dime more? They could have attached instructions demanding this. And if Bush wanted to veto them fine, send another one and tell the people that Bush is playing chicken with the troops' welfare and they (Congress) are not going to budge.

The Democrats proved how they lack backbone.

It's a difficult situation and I can understand how someone might think you could just force the matter but it's not really like that. I think Biden said it best... Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

The thought of Bush not bringing the troops home until the casualties increased significantly is a real possibility. I think those who voted against the funding were trying in their way to send a message that if elected they would end it quickly but Biden (the only one on the stage that voted to continue funding) felt you needed to have the votes or the presidency to actually end it BEFORE you took away funding to troops in the field. Different strategies to trying to win the presidentcy. Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.

[TVoffBrainOn]

I've been very impressed with Biden so far.

[Bunz]

Mike Gravel from Alaska needs to go back to Alaska.

Hell No! He moved away 20something years ago to Virginia, we dont want him back at all. It kills me anytime he plays the Alaska card. His notion of a nation wide voters referendum would be the most detrimental thing to Alaska.

[Bunz]

I was in shock thinking, "Didn't the Gulf of Tonkin affair teach you why maximum scrutiny when someone plans on sending our young into harm's way is the least you can do as a representative?"
While I agree with you to a point, that was the case of a democratic PotUS pulling the wool over the eyes of the legislative branch, it appears the GOP learned more from that. But also in terms of giving Bush the green light in the first place, they didnt have the votes to stop it regardless at the time.

[top gun]

Hell No! He moved away 20something years ago to Virginia, we dont want him back at all. It kills me anytime he plays the Alaska card. His notion of a nation wide voters referendum would be the most detrimental thing to Alaska.

Hey Bunz I'm with ya on this one. Mike Gravel is waaay... waaaaaaaay out there. I cringe every time he says something hoping he won't make the whole Democratic Party look silly just because he's in it.:D

The other guy that makes my eyes roll a little is Kucinich. Not because he has bad intentions... I think he's a very compassionate guy with a real heartfelt hope for things. But he's just not tough enough for any kind of a world stage. Let's face it... he's a Hippie in a suit:) . That's fine if you're a major or something but you have to have a tough side somewhere if you're going to be the president. Nice guy though... and you should have seen his wife! That's one tall, good lookin' red head.

Richardson is clearly a good diplomat but not president material.

Dodd has experience but lacks the energy needed to win.

Biden really shined! He really impressed me.

I thought and Clinton came across as smart, rational & moderate. A peacemaker... almost spokesperson for the group. I hope she keeps wearing the dark suits. She looked good... I'd even go as far as to say presidential. I know she's a women but the bright colored pants suits take away from her message. It's like the guys hitting the campaign trail wearing shorts... it just doesn't fit what you're trying to do.

Edwards and Obama didn't make any big mistakes. They made their points. But I don't know that they won any "way to go!" points. I've seen both look and sound better.

[michaelr]

I will only vote for someone who will get us the hell out of this war. Neither Billary, Biden, Obama, Rudy, Romney, McCain will do this. In fact if you want 4 more years of bush, then cast your Vote for the above mentioned. Then weep.

[top gun]

I will only vote for someone who will get us the hell out of this war. Neither Billary, Biden, Obama, Rudy, Romney, McCain will do this. In fact if you want 4 more years of bush, then cast your Vote for the above mentioned. Then weep.

From all the statements I've heard and watching all the debates all the Democratic candidates want to bring the troops home. Clinton's made the statement several times, "If George Bush does not bring the troops home... when I'm elected president I will!"

Now it seems to be kind of a split decision over on the Republican side. They really all want to stay and keep the conservative fear mongering thing alive... but they see the polls @ 70% of Americans wanting us out and they're in a bind politically.

You could put your faith on either side on a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich. They'd definitely leave as quick or quicker than anyone else... but they have no chance at getting the nomination let alone getting elected. And they'd probably both be two very good human beings that are a little to weak overall to be president.:)

[michaelr]

From all the statements I've heard and watching all the debates all the Democratic candidates want to bring the troops home. Clinton's made the statement several times, "If George Bush does not bring the troops home... when I'm elected president I will!"

Now it seems to be kind of a split decision over on the Republican side. They really all want to stay and keep the conservative fear mongering thing alive... but they see the polls @ 70% of Americans wanting us out and they're in a bind politically.

You could put your faith on either side on a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich. They'd definitely leave as quick or quicker than anyone else... but they have no chance at getting the nomination let alone getting elected. And they'd probably both be two very good human beings that are a little to weak overall to be president.:)


If they really wanted to end this war, they could. They have the option to send bush a bill with a time line until he signs it. Eventually he would have to. No you have been fooled by smoke and mirrors my friend. Now that you've seen it, maybe it will be harder for them yo do it to you again.

[top gun]

If they really wanted to end this war, they could. They have the option to send bush a bill with a time line until he signs it. Eventually he would have to. No you have been fooled by smoke and mirrors my friend. Now that you've seen it, maybe it will be harder for them yo do it to you again.

My friend... I'm pretty involved here being 50 and working on several campaigns over the years from school board to president. THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES! They can't override the veto. You need huge bipartisan support before you start choking off supplies to troops in the field.

The Democrats win the next election the troops come home. It's that simple.:) Let's work together to make that happen.

[michaelr]

My friend... I'm pretty involved here being 50 and working on several campaigns over the years from school board to president. THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES! They can't override the veto. You need huge bipartisan support before you start choking off supplies to troops in the field.

The Democrats win the next election the troops come home. It's that simple.:) Let's work together to make that happen.

I would do just about anything to bring Americans home from Iraq. However, I don't think that any of the Democrats running will do that. They will not want their party to look week. If they do bring any home, they will be combat troops only, that is not a good idea. Remember Saigon 1975? We are building fourteen permanent bases along with an embassy the size of a small town. This war(i usually call it "this mess") will continue for many years to come. Only a strong willed president will be able to do any thing about it.
As far as votes go, they have the option to send the same bill time and time again until it gets signed. Now they want to wait to see what happens in Sept. BS! How many more will have to die or kill until then. The truth of the matter is, the surge isn't working, will not work, and it will take generations until Iraq becomes stable again, not till Sept.

[USMC the Almighty]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

[michaelr]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

I would like to see that . Your also correct about the moderators. If the maintain status quo, then I think after a question is asked, all the candidates should be able the SAME question.

[OPGhostdog]

HEY......Lets ALL stop a minute to think. Just in case that you have
forgotten USMC, Everyone is entitle to express their opinions regardless
to if one agrees or dis-agree. Situations like we are talking about here
isn't solving the problems nowhere.

To me Politics is a game that's to be played, and as we all know there
is rules & guidelines for playing the game. You are speaking about
Moderators. Where will these Moderators be picked from, and who will
be the ones to pick them?

However I think we all (the ones with good senses) can see that we
went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and now the US Government is
to embarrassed to admit that they made a mistake. So now we have
the Democrats-vs-The Republicians over who's fault is it that we're
in the Middle East?

The up-coming Presidential Election will show exactly how things will
turn out, but don't forget there is other political parties that can be
powerful enough to over rule the Dems & Republicians. In closing can
any of you guess why this can happen? Because there is others who
don't agree with the Democrats & Republiicians BS.

[USMC the Almighty]

Your also correct about the moderators. If the maintain status quo, then I think after a question is asked, all the candidates should be able the SAME question.

That's true. What really pisses me off is the, "Senator McCain, please tell us how you would deal with healthcare if you were president. 30 seconds."

Now how the hell can anyone solve provide any real solution in 30 seconds? Americans deserve a real dialogue and these debates do not provide it.

[USMC the Almighty]

HEY......Lets ALL stop a minute to think. Just in case that you have
forgotten USMC, Everyone is entitle to express their opinions regardless
to if one agrees or dis-agree. Situations like we are talking about here
isn't solving the problems nowhere.

I really do not know what you are trying to get at. Everyone is entitled to their opinion -- of course, when did I say to the contrary? In fact what I am advocating allows for candidates to express their opinions more thoroughly so you're not really making much sense.



To me Politics is a game that's to be played, and as we all know there
is rules & guidelines for playing the game. You are speaking about
Moderators. Where will these Moderators be picked from, and who will
be the ones to pick them?

I don't want Moderators at all who ask these inane questions. I want the candidates themselves to spur the dialogue. Perhaps there can be timekeepers (who make sure the candidates don't go over say, a 15 minute time limit rather than 30 seconds).



However I think we all (the ones with good senses) can see that we
went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and now the US Government is
to embarrassed to admit that they made a mistake. So now we have
the Democrats-vs-The Republicians over who's fault is it that we're
in the Middle East?

What does this have to do w/ anything?

[dls]

Tell me again why the Democrats couldn't have continually sent bills that would have allowed just enough funds to bring our troops home and not a dime more? They could have attached instructions demanding this. And if Bush wanted to veto them fine, send another one and tell the people that Bush is playing chicken with the troops' welfare and they (Congress) are not going to budge.

The Democrats proved how they lack backbone.

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

[michaelr]

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

I could not have said it any better.

[top gun]

I would do just about anything to bring Americans home from Iraq. However, I don't think that any of the Democrats running will do that. They will not want their party to look week. If they do bring any home, they will be combat troops only, that is not a good idea. Remember Saigon 1975? We are building fourteen permanent bases along with an embassy the size of a small town. This war(i usually call it "this mess") will continue for many years to come. Only a strong willed president will be able to do any thing about it.
As far as votes go, they have the option to send the same bill time and time again until it gets signed. Now they want to wait to see what happens in Sept. BS! How many more will have to die or kill until then. The truth of the matter is, the surge isn't working, will not work, and it will take generations until Iraq becomes stable again, not till Sept.

I totally agree that this surge... any surge will never work. But we still come back to the bottom line which is... which side is more likely to bring the troops home sooner? Then pick a candidate. And then tell me he or she has a reasonable chance at winning.

Who would that be in your opinion?

[top gun]

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

It's a difficult situation and I can understand how someone might think you could just force the matter but it's not really like that. I think Biden said it best... Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

The thought of Bush not bringing the troops home until the casualties increased significantly is a real possibility. I think those who voted against the funding were trying in their way to send a message that if elected they would end it quickly but Biden (the only one on the stage that voted to continue funding) felt you needed to have the votes or the presidency to actually end it BEFORE you took away funding to troops in the field. Different strategies to trying to win the presidentcy. Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.

[michaelr]

I totally agree that this surge... any surge will never work. But we still come back to the bottom line which is... which side is more likely to bring the troops home sooner? Then pick a candidate. And then tell me he or she has a reasonable chance at winning.

Who would that be in your opinion?

I am pretty much an old fashioned type. I am also a Independent, however I vote a little more republican then I do Democrat. I can see only one person that will get us out of this mess and bring a little sanity back to our country, that would be Ron Paul.

[top gun]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

I don't disagree that the debates are more political theater than substance. But you know the really sad thing? There are a lot of people that eat it up. They actually like the sound bite candidate.

The other thing is though, right now there are just too damn many candidates. That will willow down.

And once you get someone in mind or you go to a few different candidates appearances you get a lot more in depth information. Also their websites often have much more specific information on their position and proposals on issues.

We'll get there as time marches on... we're just a long way out right now. :)

[dls]

Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

[michaelr]

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

We have been there for more than 4 years now. Things continue to get worse and worse. We can leave today and let the Iraqi's sort this mess out for themselves. We also need to hold the sponsors of this mess to justice. This was nothing more than a war of aggression, that in it self is a war crime. Both parties are responsible, and changes are needed with both.
I watched all of the debates for both parties. All of the candidates sounded the same. They try to look like they are against the war, or how it was conducted. BS! They all want to nuke Iran, they all sound like mouth pieces for Israel. We need better, we sure as hell deserve better.

[top gun]

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

I think that's true. But the Republicans hold no more moral high ground and have no more values than the Democrats. From Mark Foley to Scooter Libby and on and on the problems are there just as much as anywhere. And the Republican front runner is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control himself.

I'll agree when a Republican like Mark Foley or Ted Haggart comes out of the closet it gets highlighted. But that's because the bigotry is so intense against any group that does not toe the Christian conservative line they deserve the spotlight when they get caught up in a hypocritical situation.

As far as Iraq goes. There doesn't have to be an immediate pull out. But even if we started today, a phased redeployment would have major American forces in Iraq over 5 probably closer to 6 full years in total. That's a long time.

Even the longest journey begins with the first step my friend. We need a Democratic President that will allow us to take that first step.:)

[USMC the Almighty]

What the hell is a "phased redeployment"?

[top gun]

What the hell is a "phased redeployment"?

You're in the military you know what a phased redeployment is... :)

phase down: to reduce by gradual stages.
phase out: to bring or come to an end gradually; ease out of service.


re·de·ploy –verb (used with object)
1. to transfer (a unit, a person, supplies, etc.) from one theater of operations to another.
2. to move or allocate to a different position, use, function, or the like; reassign.
3. to execute a redeployment.

re·de·ploy·ment, noun
To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.
To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness: redeploy the company's resources.

[USMC the Almighty]

You're in the military you know what a phased redeployment is... :)


I was trying to make a point. Of course I know the definition, but I was trying to get at what this would accomplish.

In my opinion, this is the worst possible option. Either committ 100% or pull out immediately. Half-assing is the worst possible course of action.

[top gun]

I was trying to make a point. Of course I know the definition, but I was trying to get at what this would accomplish.

In my opinion, this is the worst possible option. Either committ 100% or pull out immediately. Half-assing is the worst possible course of action.

We're in a mess. There is not going to be a 100% commitment. I agree that anytime we go into a "war" we should be prepared to take all combatants out.(Like Korea though that's the problem with going into these police actions and calling it a war) To do that you need major world support and support at home for the plan... we have neither.

I don't think we pull out all at once because we can still be a stabilizing factor and a quick strike force in the region. My plan would have 2 options on the table... the firsts time may have already run out.

Plan A) Divide the country into three separate states and divide the oil revenue. US troops to be used only to patrol buffer zones.

Plan B) Start a phased pull out bringing at least half of our forces home and redeploy the remaining in three fortified locations in the region... Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Kurdish northern section of Iraq near Turkey, if not in Turkey.

With only 30% of the American people approving the course we are on in Iraq change is inevitable. No one is buying that a surge (an escalation) is a change. There is an outside chance this war could be continued in some semblance of it's current form... but that would require that the Democrats don't win the presidency and/or the Senate doesn't pick up 16 more Democratic Senators to allow for a Senate override of a veto.

If people really believe what they're saying in all the polls they need to walk the walk and not just talk the talk and vote for the Democrats in 08!

[dls]

I think that's true. But the Republicans hold no more moral high ground and have no more values than the Democrats. From Mark Foley to Scooter Libby and on and on the problems are there just as much as anywhere. And the Republican front runner is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control himself.

I'll agree when a Republican like Mark Foley or Ted Haggart comes out of the closet it gets highlighted. But that's because the bigotry is so intense against any group that does not toe the Christian conservative line they deserve the spotlight when they get caught up in a hypocritical situation.

As far as Iraq goes. There doesn't have to be an immediate pull out. But even if we started today, a phased redeployment would have major American forces in Iraq over 5 probably closer to 6 full years in total. That's a long time.

Even the longest journey begins with the first step my friend. We need a Democratic President that will allow us to take that first step.:)

Let me clarify my previous post. Hillary is a socialist! I refuse to vote for a know socialist.
I like Fred Thompson, can't wait for him to jump in and would be surprised if any of the Dems would dare debate with him.

[top gun]

Let me clarify my previous post. Hillary is a socialist! I refuse to vote for a know socialist.
I like Fred Thompson, can't wait for him to jump in and would be surprised if any of the Dems would dare debate with him.

Well of course I don't agree that Mrs. Clinton is a socialist anymore than you'll agree the other side is fascist based so we'll just have to live with that.

On the Thompson thing. All he has to do is show up. :D