Comments on: Anti-War House Coalition Leader Endorses Hillary

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:39:52 +0000

Damn it. I didn’t mean my original post to reply to the comment above. My mistake.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:39:05 +0000

I can’t see how this well help her campaign. People will just dismiss it.

By: lester

lester — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:41:33 +0000

I’m waiting for the punchline with these hillary topics.

By: Retired

Retired — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:33:37 +0000

Actually, she probably wouldn’t do any of these things. The LA Times is reporting that Sen. Clinton is no longer taking any questions from citizens as she completes her pre-caucus helicopter tour of Iowa. And why should she take questions? What do the questions, or the questioners, for that matter, mean to her? She’s comfortably ahead in the polls. As long as that is the case, she doesn’t need to talk.

By: Taters

Taters — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:17:24 +0000

Welldone Susan. This is good endorsement for Hillary.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:32:25 +0000

Hilary is pretty good at changing her mind once the polls tip past 51 percent the other way.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:54:35 +0000

I’ll take door number 2. and retro-active immunity with that 25 billion, please. 1.5 billion ain’t what it used to be, is it.?

By: CK

CK — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:44:15 +0000

Well Bhutto and her family only managed to steal 1.5 billion from Pakistan, there are $25 billion of frozen Iraqi assets in the USA waiting to be plucked.
Chalabi didn’t quite get his hands on them but Maliki and crew are more persistent.
Every charge off lowers CITI’s net worth, enough charge offs and CITI is history.
What does a weak $ do for the USA.
Theory: makes the exports cheaper and the imports cost more.
Secondary theory: A declining dollar means that the $3 Trillion held by China and Japan and other players are depreciating assets. Of course these are static analysis theories, in a dynamic world, other players pre-act based on their POLITICAL strategies as well as their rational economic expectations. Some nations move away from selling things to the USA and sell them instead to other more worthy countries, some nations move away from any $ denominated trading and require payment for their exports in stable or rising currencies.
Actuality: a declining $ is a way to rip off folks who don’t react or who can’t react. American citizens can’t react by buying and selling their daily needs in Euros or yen or yuan so as always a decling dollar just screws the citizenry.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:32:50 +0000

even cheaper in an inflationary economy Can anyone explain why CITI would be able to charge off 19 billion dollars? M3 anyone? And we think China is manipulating currency? What does a week dollar do for the US? I would like to see the numbers they DO put out reflect reality. Politico is reporting Bush will veto the Defense bill because of a provision to allow damages to be sought against Saddams tenure. Sen Lautenberg NJ provision. Bush is said to be reacting to a request from the current "Iraqi government".

By: CK

CK — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:10:45 +0000

YES yes I believe I believe.
I believe that Hillary will reverse her position on the wars, abjure her committments to AIPAC, repudiate her largest contributors, flip off Rupert Murdoch, return the Gollum-Sacks contributions and adopt the Ron Paul position on Iraq. I believe that this is what is called being a “flip=flopper” if you don’t believe and a “serious student of reality” if you do believe. Talks CHEAP, even cheaper in an inflationary economy.
I do have one question I would like to see placed to Sen. Clinton. Senator, If you are elected would you instruct, or request, or demand the Federal Reserve to publish the M3 numbers again? ( Hint for some: M3 is the true measure of inflationary monetary growth )

By: Michael Lafferty

Michael Lafferty — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:07:58 +0000

Methinks she needs more rest. That attribution in the Des Moines Register makes Senator Clinton look and sound rather like a blithering idiot, which I know is not the case. But, her poorly formed expressions—and, the obvious tendency to gloss over anything of substance as she rambles—does not inspire confidence. Not at all. Who writes this obviously shoddy material?

Talk about stumbling around her ‘talking points…’

“Surely,” in the words of Governor Dean, “…we can do better than this.”