The fact Obama decided to frame Hillary as dishonoring King’s legacy for her LBJ comments, in light of that fact, is further reason to vote against Obama.

As for Wright, it’s a vote of confidence against him as well. Instead of using these examples of people striving to better one another, even his own personal history, he plays the same cards. Meanwhile poverty and misnourishment have increased for Obama’s constituents. He’s letting Rezko scrape relief efforts dry, leaving housing to collapse and continuing the likelihood of urban flight.

Nice suits to preach in and nice cars driving him to the service evidently mean more to him than a better world and community to preach about.

barak obama wouldnt know decency if it was another goverment handout.

The fix is in and it’s horrible

Maybe.

Maybe not.

But Obama has already lost.

Funny, isn’t it?

How does that Elvis Costello lyric go?

“We break wiseguys just like matchsticks”

You forget an essential fact here. Bush didn’t need (and would have attack Iraq without) any vote from Congress.

You create an alternate history and present it as fact. I believe there is evidence that Bush is willing to defy Congress. How much difference would a strong Democrat opposition have made? It’s guesswork to answer that because there never was a strong Democrat opposition.

And if there is something you should never forget if that should Clinton be President, if it had been her decision at that time; we would have NOT gone to war.

Probably true, but still guesswork. Hillary remains as unproven as Obama does when it comes to tough executive decisions. Admittedly, it would be difficult to find anyone quite as incompetent as Bush.

Hans Blix talks about the start of the Iraq war

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons’ existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy.

Increased safety for Israel might have been an undeclared US aim. If so, it is hard to see that anything was gained by a war which has strengthened Iran.

I’ll add to Hans’ list that Iraq was never connected to the 911 disaster in any way, shape or form.

Certainly, the Democrats should have at the very least been asking some much tougher questions than they did, the WMD line was weak at the time and that information was available to Hillary and the others. A bit of critical thinking would have gone a long way. Let’s be a bit honest with ourselves, the war in Iraq was really about oil and the military push-and-shove in the Middle East over oil goes back way before 2001. Everyone knows this, but they all pretend to be talking about something else, which is pretty sickening really.

So he then turns up on the Op Ed as a really “important” idea macher. Otherwise known as an Opinion Contributor.

He along with the Madame of Liberal Philosophy, Arianna Huffington trashed Al Gore. They both assured us that Gore and Bush were alike, and only Nader could save us. Dowd kept telling us how utterly boring Gore was, and how unenjoyable he was to “watch”. They kept up a furious campaign of derision and hate against Gore non stop.

So this self styled critic of critiques has decided that it’s now Hillary as a Gore replacement. He’s as pompous and fatuous a speaker as he is a writer.

Along with fellow henchwoman Dowd, the acidic and toxic expert on bitchery, they along with Kristol and Brooks have decided like the rest of the press to elect Obama.

We all in NYC remember Rich and co. slogging the war, and along with Judy Miller telling tall stories that enabled this.. war without a doubt.

So now Rich has Hillary in his sights and he’s wrting one of his former nuclear theartre reviews as he mischarachterizes and uses every cliche imaginable to take her down without owning up to his own positions on the very issues he blames her for.

Ah, hypocricy I never knew ye until I read a Rich column. Dowd I expect this from. A bitter,mean spirited tight assed hate slinger with hardly anything to say that remotely resembles fairness.

On the day that Hillary won in N.Hampshire, a very
nasty Dowd OP ED appeared that Dowd wrote as a first hand observer of Hillary’s impending downfall, and described the small crowds, etc. as though she was there. Actually, Dowd was abroad the day she wrote “first hand” from N.Hampshire. Her assistant did the reporting.

The Times has gone to hell in many ways for quite a while, but these two “journalists” cannot report facts, only opinion to further their agendas,…whatever they may be.

Krugman writes knowledgeably and honestly and know his subject well, calls the shots as he sees them, and is consistent without taking rigid positions.

Obama no longer cares whether he is considered “above it all”.

He’s got the nomination bagged even to the point where there are rumours that a “mimi” convention is to be convened after PA to oust Hillary from the main convention to save the bickering they expect from Fla and Mi.Supers will hold this at Obama’s behest.

The fix is in and it’s horrible. This could be called another COUP. Or, Coup de Dean Ltd.

Not according to long term Obama mentor Rev. White and other similarly-disposed advisors such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. In fact, according to black liberation theology, if you are caucasian you are an oppressor of people of color, regardless of whether or not your ancestors actually participated in any type of slave trade.

However, to take your point, the fact that Obama’s ancestors may have been slavers is irrelevant–at least to the “typical white person.” That such also becomes irrelevant to adherents of black liberation theology only if one is of a certain racial heritage is an hypocrisy that perhaps ought to be explored further.

After 16 plus years of the lies and over the top hysteria, Hillary now has an inverse teflon. People know there is never enough there there to warrent the hysteria . The hit jobs are now boring .

Also we are too deep in shit to CARE what these over paid attack poodles say about someone who is, thank god, willing and able to clean the mess up.

It is such a relief to know someone else besides myself has been infuriated with Frank Rich, NYTimes, and Dowd for trashing Hillary! To those in the Democratic Party so eager to deny Hillary the Presidency they have successfully divided the party like never before! Thanks also to the leading blogers such as: Buzzflash, Daily Kos, Josh Marshall, Huffington Post, Bill Maher, Olbermann for sealing the deal with for the Republicans!

Larry, keep up the wonderful support for Hillary!! She’s worth it!