Although I don't want her to be President, I do think she "gets it" as far as security issues are concerned. And a Repub controlled Senate and House would be a counterbalance to her domestically. So she doesn't "scare" me as a potential PResident.

There's still much more water to go under our bridge between now and '08. Much. I think a significant terror attack, which I consider highly likely, will change the chessboard for the next election.

But until that happens, we can only drive around with the maps we have.

I've never had much passion for the whole Hillary thing, pro or con. She's a peculiar ligntning rod in the same way Newt is. It's difficult to say if all the lightning she attracts is from the storm that matters.

She certainly "gets it". Unfortunately, what she "gets" is that she must take certain positions in order to be elected.

I have no doubt that she holds genuine convictions of some kind or another. I just don't know what they are --and whenever she speaks, she only makes the mystery greater.

I have no doubt that she holds genuine convictions of some kind or another. I just don't know what they are

Her genuine convictions are to achieve power. And then figure out what her convictions are. Alas, such is modern politics.

"her genuine convictions are to achieve power..."

You may be right about that, Marcus. I just hope her '08 opponent doesn't make me have to vote for her.

Incidentally, MJT, your swing-voter friend's observation really nailed it.

I still don't understand what your liking for young Prince Harold is about. Ford has always struck me as being something of an empty suit, and the fact that he voted for that abominable bankruptcy bill certainly didn't impress me. But you have now listed him at least twice as a Democrat that you admire, and since I'm always intrigued by your thinking, even if I don't agree with it, I'm curious as to why?

No.

Hillary won't get past the primaries. Yes she has the most money, and massive name recognition, but she's too "centrist" in her image for Primary Voters, who seem to have moved to Moveon positions.

Hillary is already being pasted for even talking to Newt Gingrich, McCain, and Santorum. Her Sistah Souljah moment with Grand Theft Auto alienated a lot of primary voters. She's viewed with hatred by Moveon, Soros, Dean, etc for support for Iraq.

Hillary also has waaaay too much baggage. Any republican should she by a miracle get the nomination would torpedo her with all the moves she made in the White House that were weak on terror. Hillary is the Nineties and it's not that era any more.

Hillary v. Condi. Shakes both party bases to bits.

I'm not an American and I have no great knowledge about the political scene over there, but I will say categorically that Hilary will never be elected, even if the Democrats were so foolish as to vote her through the primaries. She carries way too much baggage. I am a little surprised so many people take her chances seriously.

I need a break from anyone named Bush or Clinton. At least four years, eight would be even better.

TmjUtah: No.

Somehow I figured you'd say that.

I dont think she carries too much baggage at all. If y'all think that Bush Derangement Syndrome has captured the soul of the democratic party, and that it has seriously hurt that party, just wait for the 08 season, and the continuing rise of Hillary. You aint seeeeeeeen derangement yet, and I think it will seriously hurt the GOP.

I think Weisberg's assement is spot-on. She shouldnt have much problems navigating through the primaries. I.e. I dont think she will be defeated by the left-center split in the party. Perhaps there might be others reasons that she fails, but she is well positioned for the nomination.

IP: You aint seeeeeeeen derangement yet, and I think it will seriously hurt the GOP.

We have seen this before. And it did hurt the GOP. If they want to play that movie again it's their call.

No.

(And I worked on Bill's campaign.)

As one pundit put it, maybe she isn't such a brilliant politician if we all are capable of watching her every move as a brilliant politician.
Obama? Every time I listen to him, I think, he is NOT a rock star, no matter how many times they tell me he is.

No.

Rather than use your bandwidth,I defer to the comment made by Patricia.

Hillary is the consumate politician who gives off the vibes, no matter what she says of being the consumate politican.

Even excluding her lack of true principles, her glaring NEED shows through everything she does. It is unbecoming and is sensed rather than understood by the electorate.

No.

Ditto. What was it Patton said about McAuliffe?

I'm all for a Clinton Presidency, although I support McCain first.

I think I'd vote for her just to stop hearing about Bush. I think she will win for sure.

Michael -

By 2008 we'll be closer to a shooting war on the Pac Rim than any time since WW2. "Baggage" as in "how did the PRC upgrade their computer, missile guidance, communication, and weapons design so fast in the nineties?" will play a major role as we debate the costs associated with dealing with the threat.

By 2008 the Ownership Society will be well entrenched, population shifts favoring Red States will probably have accelerated as Blue States become less livable due to high taxes and uncompetitive business climates. Ditto racial demographics favoring conservative fiscal policy and educational accountability vice the stale old populist rhetoric of victimization.

Social Security reform will be two years old in 2008. Yes, that vote will happen before the 2006 elections. It's good to know where your representatives and senators stand, and Bush will make sure that some form of legislation is passed.

Hillary can make nice noises about the Roberts nomination out of one side of her mouth and reference Alfred E. Neuman out the other and skate in the old media, but even with their monolithic support (and granted, dwindling relevance) she stands zero chance nationally by voting against a reasonable SS reform. If she doesn't save old FDR's legacy, the moonbat base that rules the Democrat primaries will remember Bill's promise to roll back welfare reform after he signed it. They don't have a problem with their politicians lying, per se, but they get pretty angry when THEY are the ones being lied to. Angrier than their at rest state, I should say.

But the primary reason she'll fail is the reality that she's a wooden campaigner, dependent entirely on scripting, polls, and a fawning press. She's pretty much a non-entity policy wise and her regal treatement (for a freshman senator)as far as committee assignments has obviously had more to do with knowledge of where skeletons lie and favors owed than to any remarkable legislative or leadership qualities.

She may be the best they can come up with, of course. Just like Dean was the man they picked to chair their party.

How sad is that?

I don't see defeat in the war on terror, economic collapse, administration scandal, or a resurgence of the Klan on any horizon. Not much there to cheer up the Democrats, but there you go.

My gut says Hillary just the way it said Dubya during the Clinton impeachment. I don't want her, but I think we are going to get her. Many of the above comments are encouraging: baggage, the new demographics, wooden personality. Hope there is enough negative to stop her. A lot will depend on who the GOP puts up. I have no sense of who that will be, but it seems to me that it has to be someone who can hold the center - particularly if they have to run against Hillary.

Condi vs Hillary! Or Condi as VP?

Hillary could win the nomination because the Dems have so few "electable" nationals -- and by 2008 Iraq will be looking quite a bit better. Hillary may well lead the Dems back to a reasonable pro-democracy to defend America position, and trust America to be good. Even if she leads it there because of polls.

Will 2006 be a big Dem change for pro-democracy or will they remain pro-dictator, er, "stability"? Hillary, now, is the ONLY leading Dem advocating pro-democracy in Iraq. For the pro-war, anti-Tax Cuts, anti-Moral Values (=pro-abortion) folk, she's the only Dem in the game.
So far.

I truly wish her luck in changing her party. I hate, er, dislike her quite a bit, but if she (or any Dem) becomes President, the Reps in Congress would find "small gov't" is beautiful, again.

Maybe Bush will get 3 SC pro-life justices, who can overturn Roe and let abortion be different in different states (as the 9th & 10th Ammendments imply); Hillary can lead the Dems to really be strong on Defense (so the Iraq War is nearly non-decisive); and then the HUGE spending Dems can be in the WH looking at a big deficit getting bigger.

Of course I'd prefer Libertarians to become more influential in the Dems, but don't see it happening.

Hillary's more electable than Gore was; the election will depend on the choices and the situation at the time. It's far, far away.

Tmj,
By 2008 we'll be closer to a shooting war on the Pac Rim than any time since WW2.

Hmmmm, given the fact that both Korea and Vietnam are on the Pac Rim, and it is fair to say that we came "pretty close to a shooting war" in those places, I wonder what you think might be happening in '08 that would justify your comment?

By 2008 the Ownership Society will be well entrenched

heh. And just what, pray tell, do you mean by that? The "ownership society" phrase was a little marketing blurb from the last election period. Are you under the impression that it is something more than that, and if so, what?

population shifts favoring Red States...

Lets not lose perspective here. 3000 airheads figuring out how to use a butterfly ballot, and there would never have been a Bush presidency. 30,000 vote swing in Ohio, and we would be having a Kerry presidency. Demographic shifts could be overwhelmed by even the slightest bit of real enthusiasm for one candidate or another.

racial demographics favoring conservative fiscal policy

"racial demographics"? What on earth are you talking about?

the stale old populist rhetoric of victimization.

I guess you are referring to the great "we are victims" campaign by the religous right. Glad to see that you think it will fail.

Social Security reform will be two years old in 2008

The reason it hasnt passed of course, is because there is nowhere close to enough support for it. Even in a republican Congress. Whose members, despite rhetoric to the contrary, do make an effort to insure their own political survival by trying to reflect popular opinion. But this is all going to change somehow????

she stands zero chance nationally by voting against a reasonable SS reform

Well sure. Just depends on what you consider reasonable!

They don't have a problem with their politicians lying, per se, but they get pretty angry when THEY are the ones being lied to

And therein lies the difference between dems and republicans. There seems to be no amount of lying, even to the base, that gets republicans upset. Unless its about tax cuts I guess....

But the primary reason she'll fail is the reality that she's a wooden campaigner

I really dont think that is true. At some point, as the campaign heats up, people will see Hillary herself out on the trail, and they will start to have to focus on her, rather than on the caricatures that most people carry around, thanks to 15 years of RW bile. I think many will be surprised. She can be quite charming, humerous,
and thinks quite well on her feet. Just ask those upstate NY republicans who will be voting for her next fall.

dependent entirely on scripting, polls

At some point y'all are going to have to come up with one coherent arguement, and stick with it. Is she a committed radical ideologue, or a "finger in the wind" unprincipled opportunist. The fact that y'all try both at the same time makes it clear to most observers that neither is likely true, and that y'all really dont know how to deal with her.

Hillary is in a wonderful position to win the national election. She is true a leftist on social issues (yes, even on abortion) and a hawkish centrist on interanational and security issues.

But, so is Joe Lieberman and he was gone very early in the primary fight. Now, he is a very likable guy (unlike Kerry) but lacks that certain je ne sais quoi that Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, & Bush II have that makes people want to vote for them in spite of their faults and foibles.

Hillary has the same likability problem but for a different reason; she doesn't put you to sleep a la Lieberman, she just reminds you of that elementary school teacher you had that always seemed to be threatening to drag you out of class by the ear because you did or did not do something.

Thus, as others have said in WAY fewer words:

NO.

She's no sort of idealogue.

And that's my biggest problem with her politics.

She makes her husband look principled.

I have seen Ms. Clinton on the stump. And she's had about twelve years of national exposure for me to decide who the "real Hillary" is - independent of the charicature of the "twofer" or "smartest woman in politics" I'm supposed to take seriously.

No ideas. Just ambition. Not much class for a woman in the public eye, and what is there is the kind you find around a craps table around two a.m.

Hanging on in the company of people she loathes in hopes that something comes her way.

"Shooting war" may have been too abrupt. It was late. I'm talking strategic war, the kind where fleets face off and nations die.

I'm pretty sure that the the PRC isn't going to make any serious attempt to curb their dog North Korea. That means that Japan has some serious thinking to do about their national defense. We agonize over the Nork's nuclear arsenal. I happen to believe that the Japanese could be a nuclear power about a month after they decided to become one, and it wouldn't be a matter of a few crude weapons perched on bootleg copies of old Soviet designs.

We still take some false comfort in the expanse of the Pacific as some sort of buffer. The Japanese don't have that luxury, and the fact that their current political leadership has moved to the limit of their constitutional power to aggressively support the war on terror and modernize what naval defenses they have tells me they are looking ahead and not very happy with what they see.

The people that Hillary Clinton must impress first if she is to have any chance at all are the same people that think national defense is purely a construct of the military/industrial complex. That China is just saber rattling about Taiwan specifically and not worthy of taking seriously in general. Never mind that China has tripled their amphibious sea lift capability. Never mind their newest classes of submarines have been discovered to be orders of magnitude quieter and more lethal than what they possessed just a decade ago. Never mind their published doctrines spell out territorial, economic, and espionage objectives all framed as directly opposite U.S. interests. Never mind that they have spent the last decade overtly buying influence in our (and other western governments) political circles. Never mind that their industrial capacity and population combine to make a conventional war against us a viable option.

Hillary Clinton is a many things. Statesperson, leader, or even patriot are not included in that list. She picked the wrong century to play in this game.

“The people that Hillary Clinton must impress first if she is to have any chance at all are the same people that think national defense is purely a construct of the military/industrial complex.”

Hillary Clinton has zero chance of winning the nomination if those who hold the power over the nominating process believe that she is sincere regarding defense issues. The odds might be better that Shaq O’Neal will beg me for mercy on the basketball court. The true believers will only support her if they think she is playing a con game on the yahoos living in the red states.

The national Democratic Party died last November 2nd. It’s time to bury the smelly carcass. Sigh, I guess a number of you fail to realize that assassination is illegal in the United States. One is only allowed to marginalize the opposition. How can this be accomplished with people who have little trouble in obtaining financial support? Do you want to know who ultimately has the final say in today’s national Democratic Party? If so, please fell free to visit the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/

[Hillary] does manage to occupy both the left and the center at the same time.

Her 2004 rating from Americans for Democratic Action was 95 out of a possible 100, as was her 2003 rating. She is not one of the seven Democrat Senators to agree not to filibuster the President's judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"). I don't find those facts to be consistent with "occupying the center".

This comment got posted, through my mistake on a different thread; I'll be grateful if you delete it there, Michael.

Not much class for a woman in the public eye, and what is there is the kind you find around a craps table around two a.m

Speaking of being classy.....

Hanging on in the company of people she loathes in hopes that something comes her way

Hmmm, but when GWB writes an education bill with Ted Kennedy it is a sign of statesmanship. Your fairness and objectivity is stunning, ute.

_"Shooting war" may have been too abrupt. It was late. _

Yeah well, you best be careful around here. You know what MJ can do to bloggers who make brain farts about historical events - and a lot smaller ones than forgetting two major wars!

Never mind their published doctrines spell out territorial, economic, and espionage objectives all framed as directly opposite U.S. interests

And what kind of territory do they aspire to conquer (aside from Taiwan, which we have recognized for over thirty years as being part of "one China")?
But in general, it should not be surprising that their interests are not necessarily the same as ours. They are a different country y'know, and quite legitimatly have no interest in articulating their interests in a manner that guarantees subservience to ours. It is telling that the only vision that you seem to have of how this can work out is that there must someday be a war between us. Do you take the position that the only way for the US to live in peace is to have every country in the world defer to us whenever we claim an interest, anywhere in the world?

Is the Daily Kos able to raise millions of dollars? Nope, but he is able to raise thousands---and that’s enough to constantly be able to throw a wrench into the machinery. This is a phenomenon that did not exist before the Internet. Never before could someone raise a sizable amount of money almost instantly. Daily Kos and his allies may not per se “run” the national Democratic Party. Still, they posses the ultimate veto power. And let us not forget George Soros who can raise the necessary millions. Together, this billionaire and the Daily Kos doom the Dems.

David, you are being a bit ridiculous.
You want "raising millions instantly"? Just ask Karl to set up a fifteen minute photo-op with POTUS, appearing before some special interest group that has a hot issue pending. I bet they can raise more in those fifteen minutes than kos has raised in his entire existence.

And the "ultimate veto power"? I guess thats why we had a Dean/Clark ticket, eh?

“I bet they can raise more in those fifteen minutes than kos has raised in his entire existence.”

So what? Your point is not even slightly relevant. Who cares, for the purpose of this discussion, about the money raising capabilities of the GOP? The only thing that matters is the fund raising ability of those who wish to influence the Democratic Party. And yes, the Daily Kos is always able to keep his foot in the door. A few years ago, this would have been virtually impossible.

John Kerry is one of the most liberal senators in the United States. It was something of a con game to market him as a moderate. Furthermore, the left wingers doomed his chance for victory by pushing Kerry to ridiculously assert that “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it."

So what? Your point is not even slightly relevant. Who cares, for the purpose of this discussion, about the money raising capabilities of the GOP

Whoa, easy big fella. Just responding to this little pearl of yours:

Never before could someone raise a sizable amount of money almost instantly

So I guess what you object to is that dems can actually raise money in a manner that might begin to approach a pale imitation of Gop prowess.

the left wingers doomed his chance for victory by pushing Kerry to ridiculously assert that “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it

Hmmmm. Let me follow this logic. Kerry voted against. I assume you believe that lefties were happy he voted against. Therefore it is the lefties that pushed him to indicate that he actually supported it???

I simply do not see Hillary as a leader. Conference chairman, maybe, smart, yes. But leader no.

so.

NO.

IP -

"They are a different country y'know, and quite legitimatly have no interest in articulating their interests in a manner that guarantees subservience to ours."

They are not merely different. They are a dictatorship evolving from marxist/maoist ideology into some construct aimed at preserving national control by an unelected cabal while at the same time attempting to compete economically in world markets.

They still govern by gulag, IP.

Nations look at capabilities before looking at intentions where world relations are concerned; smart ones do, at least. And the investment made by the PRC in espionage, hard modernization and expansion of their military coupled with their published documents relating to their positions on strategic weapons make a great case to take them seriously.

We have long standing commitments with the democratic nation of Taiwan. It is not a matter of desiring the PRC to comply with our every wish - it is a matter of how our two nations will conduct business, whether it be trade or diplomacy, in the event that China elects to attempt to crush Taiwan.

Their primary objective wouldn't be Taiwan - it would be the opportunity for them to destroy major elements of our Pac fleet that would surely respond, thus setting the stage for a six month or longer U.S. power vacuum in the western Pacific. Taiwan would be the proximal cause of conflict and would define the battlefield at China's doorstep, where they could maximize their ability to project power while we were operating at the end of a logistical pipeline thousands of miles long.

We have enjoyed overwhelming technological superiority over enemies since the mid-eighties. I am not so sure that that condition can be counted on regards China, and I am convinced that their willingness to commit material and manpower in timely pursuit of an objective vastly exceeds ours at this time.

We didn't win WW2 by having an overwhelming advantage across the board regarding better weapons than the Axis. We did have the ability to R&D faster, and we did have the manufacturing base and population to make it count. We also had the leadership and collective will to win that allowed the entire economy to shift to war mode for over five years.

I see the intermediate strategic objective of China as expansion to critical areas of the oil-rich Indonesian archipelago. They can only accomplish that by removing the gatekeepers of the Pacific since WW2 - and that would be us. We don't have all that many ships and replacing them cannot happen overnight if they are lost. An added bonus to the PRC is that they would effectively control the waters around Japan, Korea, and the eastern coast of Siberia, out into the Pacific to a depth sufficient to paralyze trade if they so desired.

What would our response be if we did step up to honor our commitment to Taiwan, only to suffer serious surface losses while failing to prevent an invasion?

The Chinese won't allow a Pearl Harbor situation to develop - far from it. Our confrontation with the PRC will not be a strategic surprise to anyone. They have been conducting a years-long campaign to develop sympathy among people in west (like you, IP) with the aim of relativizing the argument until the actual attack on Taiwan is simply accepted by a sizeable fraction of Americans as justifiable based on some nationalist grievance.

We can hit what we aim at. The problem is that our inventory is finite, and the pace at which the PRC has produced hulls, aircraft, and missiles has been defined by what they perceive will be needed to overcome our ability to defend against. The Germans had excellent weapons, but were eventually outnumbered dozens or hundreds to one and thus lost whatever advantage that edge should have provided. Both Germany and Japan began WW2 with limited objectives; their failures to consider the possibilities that armistice on our part would not be an option, or that Russia and England would not be crushed completely were fatal to their ambitions.

The PRC isn't nearly as shortsighted.

If we do go to war, we will find ourselves facing a China with their material reserves reflecting years of production at a war economy pace; our ability to put factories out of commision or hit communications/traffic nexi would bring little advantage when they already possess inventory to absorb a rate of loss that we are in no position to sustain.

Its very hard for an American adminstration to prepare effectively for such a deep threat; in the best of times we focus on our own checkbooks and that fixation is reflected in who we elect. The price of electing an administration wholly indifferent to ANYTHING but its own ephemeral power is too high a price to consider until serious, fundamental change occurs within the PRC itself.

Oh, and the unfolding benefits of NCLB as written reflects the efficacy of defined standards of performance; Kennedy's sops to the teacher's unions by gutting those provisions demanding accountability on them are object lessons in just what "bipartisan" brings to actually solving problems where democrats are concerned.

In short, they operate on a short sighted agenda that orbits around beating Bush/conservatives at any cost, while sacrificing the citizenry they are supposed to be so concerned about.

What of "ownership society" as trope? It might sound simplistic, but to me it transcends mere marketing. The information age makes it easier for more people to inform themselves and then act on financial and political decisions that they feel are in their interest. It's a bonus level of the arena of ideas, and in a free society what works usually ends up on top.

Nanny statism began to be rejected thirty years back. The color line divisions accepted as political constants for so long have begun to fade quickly as more people concentrate on pursuing what they decide is important vice what they are told is in their interest.

Hillary is a dinosaur, propped up by a dwindling population of dinosaurs. She'd actually be adequately equipped to deal with a mere partisan PR fight; that the issues are actually life and death and within the ken of individual Americans to inform themselves and act upon dooms her to defeat.

“So I guess what you object to is that dems can actually raise money in a manner that might begin to approach a pale imitation of Gop prowess.”

He who pays the piper---gets to decide which tune is played. All organizations are compelled to take seriously the concerns of those who supply their funding. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the crazies like the Daily Kos monopolize the process. And this dude ain’t gonna disappear anytime in the near future. Republicans, on theother hand, have sufficiently marginalized the fools who jeopardize their election chances. The Democrats seem utterly incapable of doing likewise.

“Hmmmm. Let me follow this logic. Kerry voted against. I assume you believe that lefties were happy he voted against. Therefore it is the lefties that pushed him to indicate that he actually supported it???”

No, it is the lefties who pushed Kerry to foolishly abandon his earlier vote. They exercised their veto power and he capitulated. This was a central reason for his defeat. Kerry was made to look like a total idiot.

First off, I'm part of the Vast Centrist Conspiracy who voted for Bush mostly because I strongly disliked Kerry. I almost wrote in Tony Blair. I also voted for Obama, one of the few condidates I've actually been enthusiastic about in over 30 years of voting. Now I'm thinking of getting a "Hillary/Obama 2008" bumper sticker. I never had much more than a mild dislike of Hillary, but started reconsidering her when she went to Iraq for the infamous Plastic Turkey Thanksgiving. It took guts to be there among people who generally didn't like her. I'm encouraged by her recent plea to Democrats to be more open to pro-lifers. I wonder if perceptions about her personality are somewhat mistaken. Amy Sullivan expressed a different view in her recent Washington Monthly article:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.sullivan1.html

"I have found her warm and utterly charming in person..."

"the real Hillary Clinton is a far cry from the caricature of a manipulative, power-hungry, shrewish woman that has been propagated by the right. One of the unexpected benefits of being demonized and attacked by conservatives for more than a decade turns out to be that voters are surprised and relieved when she doesn't fly into town on a broomstick."

"So when she paid genuine attention to the things people were saying, she really threw them."

I don't know how much of this could be Sullivan's bias, and I know there will be a major epidemic of Hillary Derangement Syndrome, but I hope she can get beyond much of that to be given a fair hearing.

A woman who would rather use the FBI to destroy non-political subordinates' careers (as well as threaten them with jail) with the objective of avoiding being thought of as "mean spirited" as an employer is bereft of the stuff by which "warm, charming" are normally measured, I think.

That's not even addressing the abuse of power angle, of course.

What a petty and viscious woman she is. Fitting enough for the party she would presume to use. Again.

The only pertinent question is what Red States can she win? Start the list.... because I'm skeptical. Arkansas, anyone?

Even if by some miracle Hillary got past the Primaries (she is not well liked in the Kos/Moveon circles, note please Moveon got THEIR candidate as DNC Chair, despite Howlin Howie's considerable baggage), she has bleak prospects in the general election.

Senators are very good at: bloviating on CSPAN, saying nothing all the time (for fear of offending anyone), raising lots of money, straddling every issue, and appealing to special interests.

They have little to none experience in managing at the executive level the vital aspects of governance: providing public safety, fighting for lower taxes OR higher levels of service, investments in infrastructure, general governing philosophies of tough on crime, pro-home ownership etc. that appeal to the broad spectrum of voters.

Almost always voters pull the lever for the Governor or similar former executive candidate over a Senator, simply because the former has more executive experience (you know what you get) and the latter generally appears as a disconnected windbag. Ike vs. Stevenson is a good example. Stevenson was a very smart man and good Senator, however Ike could and did make MacArthur shut up and go away, project toughness against the Soviets without going overboard into LeMay insanity of needless nuclear confrontations, and managed Patton AND Monty plus D-Day, the Bulge, and other WWII critical points. Even say Nixon vs. McGovern, with Nixon an odious personality at best for the average voter (no one really LIKED him) and McGovern a certified, genuine WWII War Hero, got played against McGovern's Senatorial background and Nixon's governmental experience.

I'd say that comes even more into play with the War on Terror, given that Hillary as a weak Senator, with no managerial competence, will probably be up against a GOP Governor or someone like Rudy. Don't forget the Death Penalty and other issues can be used against Hillary as way to undermine her "softness" on critical issues of public safety and re-inforce the image of the Senatorial windbag that devastated Kerry.

I don't trust Hillary. Simple as that. She says one thing to partisan Democratic audiences, another to the public at large. Bill has the same problem. It may be good politics, but it leaves me cold. Brrrr.

They need to find someone both Atrios and I will be willing to vote for.

Who says you aren't religious? Not only do you posit miracles, you beg to be graced with one. I grant, however, that "willing to vote for" is a far weaker requirement than "happy to vote for". As noted, politics can make for strange bedfellows.

I've learned to never underestimate Hillary. She's always had the ability to surprise even her harshest critics and continues to do so to this day. The biggest problem Democrats have had in establishing credibility since 1972 however, is in proving they're tough enough. My question is, even if she's the strongest candidate, can any woman pass this threshold in the eyes of the average voter.

The more time passes since 1992, the more it's obvious just how unordinary that election was. The theme of the day was "It's The Economy Stupid", for Christ's sake! It was fought over NOTHING but domestic issues. Today is clearly sooo not 1992. Today is the anti-1992, if anything. This is not a time of peace.

People know where the Democrats stand on domestic issues. What they don't know is where they stand on keeping America safe in the world. The only way Hillary Clinton has a shot in 2008 is if the banner hanging above the door in her campaign headquarters reads "It's Not The Economy Anymore, Morons".

Can a woman accomplish for the Democratic Party what no man has been able to do in the past 30+ years...convince voters that today's Democrats aren't a bunch of wimps and actually win a presidential contest on the issue of national security? We shall see.

A promise to "hunt down and kill" Osama Bin Laden by the end of her first term might not be a bad idea in this department. It's risky, but it's not like the Party really has alot to lose.

I wonder if Feminists For Life, who are anti-abortion, might extend to Hillary a talking-stage to her to focus on where they agree.
(FFL is a pro-life group whose legal counsel is Jane Roberts, wife of SC nominee John Roberts. They have two adopted children -- adoption, instead of abortion, will likely become a more responsible option for college women.)

FFL's campaign is Women Deserve Better -- and they're fighting mostly for Dem-kinda benefits: better maternity leave, more and lower cost day care, more diaper change rooms in rest rooms, etc.
(NOT small gov't); though also against partial-birth abortion.

Hillary will NOT want to lose more of those 48% Catholics voting Dem. Catholics are being urged to be more political about being anti-abortion.

Roe will be overturned in my lifetime; prolly before China invades Taiwan.

Along the lines of national security issues, Hillary must redefine the war if she has any chance at all. But the Bush administration is already in the process of redefining it.

In other words, the right OWNS the war, a position the left totally and utterly ceded to the right by virtue of BDS, a strong element of pacifism, and barrage of petty attacks. Voices of reason that agree we are at war, but have minor disagreements concerning this or that aspect have been totally drowned out by the MoveOn and KOS crowd. "Bush Lied", "Plastic Turkey", and "Halliburton" are embedded in the national consciousness as representing the side of the political spectrum that is not serious about national security.

That's a helluva lot that Hillary has to overcome.

Many in the center-left and center-right recognize the push/pull nature of societal and cultural issues and know these are arguments that never end. They were here before the war and will continue long after so whichever side these folks end up voting for on domestic issues now, they can vote against in the future.

There is no such luxury afforded to national security.

As with any race it all depends on the competition. Why is this being discussed over 3 years before the next Presidential election? When did Presidential campaigning and analysis of the campaigns become 24×7x365?

If roe is overturned (which i doubt), Hillary will be Pres. in 2008. It will be due to the initial reaction of the overturn, which will swing left. I believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Webster paved the way for Clinton, if even in part. GWB should hope that doesn't happen on his watch lest the Republican Party kick him out.

I don't believe in ultra-demographics analyses (except if were looking to make a few bucks). I work on a personal level and Shrillery fails my primary litimus test: character.

I see no person behind the Senator or the former First Lady, just an appetite for power. I have no objective measurement to know how widespread my view is, but I'm willing to bet it'll slide as soon as the MSM hypes it.

So, I can't really answer MJT's question, I can just say that I can't imagine a GOP candidate who could make Mrs. Clinton have the thinnest patina of suitability.

I'll also say this thread (and the recent survey run on this page) completed my disenchantment with the term "centrist." I obviously am not one, nor will ever be, as I've never been coerced into a vote by having my dislike of one candidate outweigh any positives. Honestly, absent the occasional celebrity, we're electing a politician and his or her coterie.

Hillary will never be elected President because she is a woman. Period, end of sentence. Too many men will only vote for a woman if she is EXTREMELY conservative, and even then only with trepidation. Too many women feel too many conflicting emotions about her.

A man with her political skills, her work ethic, her intelligence and experience, her strong national security stance along with her moderate/liberal views on other issues, would be a shoo-in, however.

Hillary could get a "Maggie Thatcher" extreme makeover and win hands down, leaving the moveon moron bunch in the lurch. If voters believed she had half the iron of Maggie, they would give her the White House and whatever else she asked for.

It goes without saying that the leftist-loonies would be left licking their wounds and shaking their fists while breathing her dust and exhaust fumes.

Markus: Too many men will only vote for a woman if she is EXTREMELY conservative

Such people are already extreme conservatives who won't vote for any Democrat, period.

How many liberals and centrists will only vote for right-wing women? I'd say about zero.

Michael -- Republicans shall paint a negative picture of whomever the Democratic nominee is, and a part of that picture will be "not strong enough to be commander-in-chief." A Democrat who can show this image to be false, and who can paint an alternative image, probably gets enough male swing voters to win the election. Joe Lieberman (easily), Evan Bayh (probably), or Joe Biden (maybe) can refute the caricature. Hillary will doubtlessly have just as strong of a national security platform as Bayh or Biden. But she'll need something more than just hawkish policy stands, because in her case the caricature, and the trepidation about her that it seeks to solidify, is based not on her policy stance, but on who she is: a WOMAN, powerful enough to want to be President, but unlike, say, a Margaret Thatcher, not powerful enough to be a strong commander in chief.

What confuses me about some of these comments is that many of the conservatives answering "no" seem to think she can't win her party's nomination. This begs the question then, of "if not Hillary, then who?

I still recall clearly how quickly the democrats fled from Dean when he was percieved as too liberal to be electable. And then settled on the mushy cipher that was John Kerry, due to the perception that he has centrist enough to win.

My sense is that HC is certainly the frontrunner for the 2008 dem nom (and she might even run with Obama in the VP slot). So I'd say that right now she's got the best chance of winning the dem nom.

Over at centerfield, we've all focused many times upon he clenched unlikability. I don't think this aspect of her personna can be denied. So as far as winning the presidency goes, I think the answer is "it depends on her opponent." McCain or Guiliani would clean her clock. Frist would get smoked(talk about clenched!). HC v. Romney would be a dead heat.

TMJ, you've always been a smart guy who impressed me with your views, but your post above had me ROTFL. Did that late night include a few too many shots of Jack? :-) The ownership society? Is this the one currently co-inciding with the rise of the interest-only mortgage loan?

This is the same problem I've been almost sick over. I despise Hilary for many reasons, mostly b/c I believe she is an opportunist and insincere. I don't think she is a listener, I believe she feels it is up to her to tell or dictate how we should live our lives.

However, I very nearly wretched when I watched Rick Santorum last week, in his insincere modesty, laughing off softballs on Fox News about his "run" in 2008. If they put this guy out there, or Bill Frist, Newt Gingrisch and the like, I just might actually (shudder) have to vote for Hillary. Just the arrogant sense of entitlement eminating from the conservatives these days makes me nauseous. It's like they are existing in their own world in which 48% of the country never existed (of which I am not a part, but certainly at least respect their opinion).

Can we please, please have some pols who, you know, live on planet earth with the rest of us?

BTW, John McCain 2008!

The other thing that is very interesting that, surprise, is never pointed out in the conservative press and blogs is the degree to which the "liberal MSM" DISLIKES Hillary.

Mike T. -- "I despise Hilary for many reasons, mostly b/c I believe she is an opportunist and insincere. I don't think she is a listener, I believe she feels it is up to her to tell or dictate how we should live our lives."

from Amy Sullivan's Washington Monthly article, "Hillary in 2008: Not So Fast":

"...many voters—weaned on a diet of conservative talking points during the 1990s—expected Clinton to be a liberal of the bluest sort, to the left of Ted Kennedy and unable to understand their concerns. What they found was that her positions on welfare, crime, and foreign policy, among other issues, were far more centrist than liberal. In addition, while most professional political observers dismissed her “Listening Tour” as a stunt, Clinton actually used it to query New Yorkers about their problems and obsessively study up on local issues."

It's like they are existing in their own world in which 48% of the country never existed

Yeah, well welcome to the conservative's reality. Actually its 47%. They acknowledge the existence of, and actually obssess over about 1%, commonly referred to as "the left".

This attitude will probably contribute mightely to their downfall.

I have no doubt that she holds genuine convictions of some kind or another. I just don't know what they are

Sure you do. The unshakeable conviction that power belongs in her hands.

The unshakeable conviction that power belongs in her hands

Well there ya go,,,she's acting like a republican in order to get those centrists!!!

bk -

The trend has been for more Americans to take more control over managing more of their own information and finances, which takes many forms.

Be it conducting product research before buying big ticket items, shopping mortgage providers via the internet, keeping track of school or community or peers, or managing their own financial portfolios, more and more people are taking a direct hand in areas that were simply beyond their ability to effectively manage in years past.

With involvement comes interest, with interest comes education, with education comes action.

I said it was late when I referenced "ownership society". See, I don't think the Republicans invented the phenomenon. Matter of fact, I KNOW they know they didn't invent it....

I do think they were smart enough to recognise the shift that was, and is, taking place, and attempt to establish a little branding from the government angle.

It's our labor, and our money, before any tax code ever comes into play. If the Federal Government were held to the same performance standards as ANY publicly held corporation (except for whoever mismanages The Nation, of course) Smith & Wesson would have to put on another shift to make enough handcuffs for the perp walks. Americans understand that of the money they send in every quarter or April 15th, probably a dime of any dollar (and I'm sure somebody, somewhere, has a semi-solid statistic on that) they are taxed actually makes it past graft, pork, fraud, or simple inefficiency.

"Ownership Society". The term provides a positive platform from which Bush can appeal to and recognise the growing number of people (that transcends race, gender, or economic strata) to exercise responsibility regarding their own lives. It simultaneously evokes reflexive derision from shallow idealogues who miss the whole point of the program and its inherent attraction to people who have had enough of populists who condemn them for success, penalize them for the same whenever they get the chance, and stand ready to subsidize any group using said penalty monies if it will benefit them politically.

It was late. I was tired. I wasn't near drunk, and neither was Bush & Co. when they came up with the brand.

It's called "appealing to interest", vice "scaring the shit out of the rubes", which is, in a nutshell, the difference between what conservative politics and democratic shoulder-striking has become.

Clear enough?

I thought so. Have a fine day.

"If Roe is overturned, Hillary wins" -- or likely any Dem.
???
Or not. What if Roe is overturned to leave it, and gay marriage, up to the states? And the blue states have legal abortion (and partial birth abortions?), and the red states have highly restrictive abortions (reported rape [with semen?], incest), or less so.

Feminism is about a LOT more than just abortion.
Isn't it???

But virtually all successful pols mostly want power -- their popular policies are often more what they think voters will vote for.
But that's democracy's purpose, after all -- trusting the majority to support what's good for themselves.

"She certainly "gets it". Unfortunately, what she "gets" is that she must take certain positions in order to be elected."

That puts her well ahead of most other Democrats.

Tom Grey (Liberty Dad) --

would you, are you, be a poet, sir?
(a modernist one (on crack))
???
like cummings,
or charles olsen,
pound for pound?

cause when you write like this:

"highly restrictive abortions (reported rape [with semen?], incest), or less so."

it really makes me wonder...

Personally, I'll take smart and unprincipled over stupid and unprincipled any day.

So Hillary has a shot.

Assuming the Republicans run Trent Lott.

Just about anybody's electable as long as the other choice is less electable. After all, Missouri elected a dead man to the Senate because the corpse was less offensive than John Ashcroft.

It looks like the only folks who can win the Republican primaries are sold out to the religious nuts and really embarrassed themselves in the Schiavo deal. Frist is trying to rehabilitate himself, but he's got a long way to go.

It's just a shame that we can't get Rudy Giuliani past South Carolina.

With Hillary taking her strong centrist positions on Iraq I'm wondering if the Dems can get her past their early primaries either, so maybe I won't get to vote for the bitch after all.

If the whole Terry Schiavo sideshow has any benefit whatsoever, it might be to scuttle Jeb Bush's presidential chances (for the time being). He may have fired up the base, but he really alienated the vaunted centrist swing voters (I hope).

On Hillary, she goes against a prime feature of American culture. Americans don't like women who are a) smart b) successful c) unapologetic about it.
In a female politician, it's a deadly combination and can be mitigated only by a large sense of humor (something the formidable Hillary lacks) or the willingness and ability to play dumb or humble at strategic times (again, not part of her makeup).

Again, if she had the same personality, drive, ambition, political values and were a man, I think she'd be a shoo in.

Thanks, tmj, that's a little more explanatory. You make a lot of sense in pointing out the opportunistic wisdom of the GOP branding this as something that they deserve the credit for. Of course, most of the credit goes to the internet and related technologies, and to how well self-interested Americans have chosen to use these to our advantage, and the ways in which companies have responded to the new ways.

I do have my doubts about how positively this in fact augurs for the GOP. If they can make the sale, then it will mean a lot more votes. But will they be able to make this sale, and if so, how well?

I hate to "go all liberal on you," because I'm not. So take the following for whatever it's worth. It seems to me that the GOP continues to run the risk of looking like they are overly beholden to large moneyed interests in ways that cast them (the GOP) in a role against this society of self-interested Americans of means. Leaving aside any judgement of the virtue of the foillowing views, i think even this "ownership society" is bound to feel antipathy towards the one-sided nature of things like the bankruptcy bill, (which rightly addressed the issue of deadbeats but left lending practices untouched), an energy bill which promises to be composed almost entirely of business subsidies, and a variety of rules related to copyright and communication that have a combined effect of making Americans feel the government will stand with business interests against the little guy. And again, I stress that I'm not passing judgement upon whether any of these policies is right, I'm simply describing what i feel to be the reaction of a substantial number of Americans to such policies, or the appearance that they seem to create.

I hope that you are correct that some form of SS reform comes to pass, as long as it focuses primarily upon future solvency. This is my biggest worry, that bush will pass a bill similar to the prescription drug bill, one that pleased both the people who got the new right to buy subsidized drugs, and also the people selling the drugs. The only people left unpleased are the people paying the bill.

Now your mileage may vary, but I am definitely not down with Bush fighting for SS reform that cares more about establishing some form of private accounts than it does about the ratio of money collected to obligations created.

. Americans don't like women who are a) smart b) successful c) unapologetic about it.

So how come Oprah Winfrey is such a big deal?

People dislike Hillary because she's cold and devious.

bk -

Read my reply again, start to finish.

"You make a lot of sense in pointing out the opportunistic wisdom of the GOP branding this as something that they deserve the credit for."

They recognize a positive trend and have moved to encourage it. Citizens that DO manage their own affairs effectively are automatically less likely to carry a victim attitude.

Citizens of the former group, who are actively engaged in positive action in their own interest, will more likely sieze on the direct benefit they will accrue by supporting the political party that has acknowledged them, and their goals, and has pledged to reduce the interference of government in their lives.

Your buzz words, especially about "moneyed interests" and "lending practices" are annoying. The GOP has out-fundraised the Democrats on small donations for decades. Businesses donate in their interest... but they still cover bets by supporting both sides. Is George Soros a "moneyed interest" of import? And lending practices are a market construct - there's a market for people who manage their money wisely, and then there's Department Store charge cards and Payday Cash Advance Checking storefronts that cater to other people.

Bankruptcy reform isn't aimed at making people miserable - it's aimed at making people responsible for their actions, and I view the move as timely indeed.

"I hope that you are correct that some form of SS reform comes to pass, as long as it focuses primarily upon future solvency."

I want Social Security as it exists now to be dismantled - over a period of decades, if need be, but I want the end product to be a federal institution that runs a profit, whose payroll/personal tax funding (at much reduced levels) is heremetically sealed from exploitation by Congress for general fund use and ultimately provides each participant the opportunity to actively manage at least half of their withheld monies within a reasonably broad family of investments.

Future solvency? How about recognising it for the three card monte pitch it has become, and work actively to fix the fundamental flaws with an eye to the future? FDR himself cautioned that it should have been reexamined within a decade of inception, if I recall correctly.

But it became just another way to write government checks to individuals...and thus congress let it grow into the beast it has become.

No, I don't know what the final form might take, but the current system is unsustainable at both ends of the process - the age bomb makes "pay as you go" impossible for the foreseeable future, and the proclivity of the legislature to wantonly rob the fund year after year poses a significant threat of default somewhere down the road.

I consider the mere possibility that the U.S. might default on a debt in the form of Treasury bonds as threat to world security right up there with a terrorist nuke in a western city. Worse than that, actually.

What else - copyright and communication? How about aggressively protecting the right for anyone to profit from intellectual property? Napster may be a case of a small privateer bearding the Mafia that is the music biz, but the principle of protecting profits of R&D or artistic endeavor is a cornerstone of capitalism. If you make the greatest widget in the history of the world, and you lose your shirt due to unrestrained piracy (never easier than now, thanks to information technology), then you'll NEVER again push the edge of the envelope forward again.

That way leads to stagnation. We don't do that very well.

Any energy policy resulting from this administration's efforts will be rejected out of hand by the Left - just like Supreme Court nominees, or U.N. appointments. It's not about whether the policy is good or not, it's all about ChimpyMcHaliburtonBushie's efforts to convert everyone to Christianity and feather corporations' beds.

There are points we can debate. Then there are others where one side or the other simply has to be beat; on some subjects the possibility of meaningful discussion passed long ago.

I like the way the next few years look, sitting in my corner of the ring. I surely do.

"So how come Oprah Winfrey is such a big deal?

People dislike Hillary because she's cold and devious."

Oprah knows how to play humble (a lesson Katherine Hepburn also learned well early in her career). Hillary doesn't do humble. She tries for warm occasionally and according to some sources can carry it off in person, but it doesn't translate well to camera or microphone.

TMJ

They recognize a positive trend and have moved to encourage it. Citizens that DO manage their own affairs effectively are automatically less likely to carry a victim attitude.

***Sure. And people who manage their own affairs effectively and closely are also more likely to notice whether policy changes are truly geared to helping them and other Americans.

Citizens of the former group, who are actively engaged in positive action in their own interest, will more likely sieze on the direct benefit they will accrue by supporting the political party that has acknowledged them, and their goals, and has pledged to reduce the interference of government in their lives.

***These people deserve to have their goals acknowledged, and as you point out, are likely to seize upon the "direct benefits," however they conceive them to be. On your last point, I'd only point out that these smart self-interested people may be briefly charmed by a pledge, but they're going to watch for what politicians actually do, not what they say. On matters of reducing government interference, the record of the GOP is decidely mixed, depending on the issue. This is not to say that the democratic party currently holds more promise, only that some or even many feel the GOP is well along in the process of falling far short of its pledges..

Your buzz words, especially about "moneyed interests" and "lending practices" are annoying.

***Well, I thought I started out with a caveat asking for a grain of salt from you, hoping you'd give me the benefit of the doubt, since you have impressed me as a fair-minded person in the past. I was speaking in shorthand instead of going over more detailed points. Perhaps that's my bad.

The GOP has out-fundraised the Democrats on small donations for decades.

***Haven't they outfundraised them on pretty much all donations?

Businesses donate in their interest... but they still cover bets by supporting both sides.

***Equally so?

Is George Soros a "moneyed interest" of import?

***Sure. He's become the black beast example the right loves to trot out. I don't like or defend him. However, let's both acknowledge that as a very wealthy liberal financier, he may well have less company than those inhabiting the set of very wealthy conservative financiers. You can't have it both ways. Either the smart people in your ownership society know who's buttering their bread, or they don't. Which is it?

And lending practices are a market construct - there's a market for people who manage their money wisely, and then there's Department Store charge cards and Payday Cash Advance Checking storefronts that cater to other people.

***I acknowledge the point. However, my own self-interest is enlightened enough that I favor some policies that mitigate the extent to which every finanial decision a person can make is also a de facto stupidity test. I don't think that lenders should be allowed to offer any deal whatsoever, as long as they can get someone to agree to the terms.

Bankruptcy reform isn't aimed at making people miserable - it's aimed at making people responsible for their actions, and I view the move as timely indeed.

***So even if the end result is more miserable people, it's still just fine, because that wasn't the goal? :-) Don't get me wrong, I support people meeting their obligations. I'm not even making the case that the changes in the bill were especially wrong or punitive. My point is only that I think the country as a whole would be better served if some of the current lending practices were curbed or at least subject to more oversight.

Let's face it, lenders in this country are poised to take advantage of people who lack financial acumen, and lending companies will care as little about this as we as a nation allow them to care. I hope you're limiting your claim about the aim of the bill to the President's motives, and not to the motives of lenders. Here's the thing: if credit card companies and other lenders wanted to limit their exposure to bankruptcies, they could also choose to make fewer risky loans to bad-credit risks. But they don't want to go that route when they can change the rules instead. Smart? Yes. Ethical? Not especially. I think fair-minded people can be pro-business enough to acknowledge that business is the straw that stirs the drink, but it's not the drink. This is a democracy, and the people are the drink.

You want the people to be financially responsible? Well so do I! And I also want lenders to be responsible, and responsible to more than just their shareholders and their bottom line. I think it's a good idea to encourage lenders to say "no" more often. If they did, and people were unable to get credit to purchase the things they wanted, they'd learn financial responsibility sooner and better.

I want Social Security as it exists now to be dismantled - over a period of decades, if need be, but I want the end product to be a federal institution that runs a profit, whose payroll/personal tax funding (at much reduced levels) is heremetically sealed from exploitation by Congress for general fund use and ultimately provides each participant the opportunity to actively manage at least half of their withheld monies within a reasonably broad family of investments.

***I agree completely with the notion that SS intake should not be used to fund deficit spending. (Although as I'm sure you'll agree, this matters very little unless in doing so, our congresspeople also bring the budget near or into balance. In other words, if they "seal off" SS dollars but also increase borrowing to continue funding deficit spending, we'll be just as screwed on Tuesday as we were on Monday. Or more. :-) )

As far as dismantling goes, I'd agree with you if I were more sanguine about the outcome that I expect. As you know, past results are no guarantee of future performance. I know more than one financially savvy and politically conservative person who thinks this could turn out to be a real disaster. And here's the other thing: I don't know how long I'll live, and I don't have kids. I don't really want to have to save to have enough money to
finance living until 90 if I only live to 73. This is a basic conundrum, and I think that the philosophical split on which approach makes sense cuts across party lines. However we achieve it, I hope that whatever portion of the program that is preserved does this: it provides subsistence level support for a decent standard of living should someone find themselves old and broke, regardless of whether this is due to circumstances within or beyond that person's control. And whatever component becomes personally owned and managed, I hope this is designed to minimize the ranks of those who were pro-personal management and then managed themselves onto the dole.

Future solvency? How about recognising it for the three card monte pitch it has become, and work actively to fix the fundamental flaws with an eye to the future? FDR himself cautioned that it should have been reexamined within a decade of inception, if I recall correctly.

***Absolutely. Here's all I meant. We should collect enough money to have a reasonable expectation that we can fund whatever promise we're making the day the money is collected. This can be achieved by tweaking either the amount collected or the promise made, or both.

But it became just another way to write government checks to individuals...and thus congress let it grow into the beast it has become.

No, I don't know what the final form might take, but the current system is unsustainable at both ends of the process - the age bomb makes "pay as you go" impossible for the foreseeable future, and the proclivity of the legislature to wantonly rob the fund year after year poses a significant threat of default somewhere down the road.

I consider the mere possibility that the U.S. might default on a debt in the form of Treasury bonds as threat to world security right up there with a terrorist nuke in a western city. Worse than that, actually.

***Agreed. Maybe not more dangerous than the nuke possibility though.

What else - copyright and communication? How about aggressively protecting the right for anyone to profit from intellectual property? Napster may be a case of a small privateer bearding the Mafia that is the music biz, but the principle of protecting profits of R&D or artistic endeavor is a cornerstone of capitalism. If you make the greatest widget in the history of the world, and you lose your shirt due to unrestrained piracy (never easier than now, thanks to information technology), then you'll NEVER again push the edge of the envelope forward again.

***How aggressively? I agree with the idea of protecting creative property rights. But I think copyright lengths are far too long. If a patent is only 17 years, why does a copyright last 100+ years? And I only brought this up as an instance where lots and lots of people might not like the government's policy stances. I'm pretty sure I qualified my initial statement to suggest this.

Any energy policy resulting from this administration's efforts will be rejected out of hand by the Left - just like Supreme Court nominees, or U.N. appointments. It's not about whether the policy is good or not, it's all about ChimpyMcHaliburtonBushie's efforts to convert everyone to Christianity and feather corporations' beds.

***Maybe so, but I only care about the objections of reasonable people, and these exist. I'm troubled that this bill is composed mostly of subsidies. Given that oil is a finite resource and given the political strife across the globe, would it really kill us to take measures to curb consumption? What's so economically irrational about working both the supply side and the demand side of the equation?

There are points we can debate. Then there are others where one side or the other simply has to be beat; on some subjects the possibility of meaningful discussion passed long ago.

I like the way the next few years look, sitting in my corner of the ring. I surely do.

**Good on you. I'm not in the other corner though. I'm stuck in the middle.

bk -

Thank you for the civil and reasoned response.

If I wasn't so blasted after today's ten hours I'd make another run at you ...lol.

Life is one long multi-chapter test. The less somebody else tries to dumb down the curriculum, the better at living I will be.

Having said that, I gotta get a shower and some z's...but look forward to discussing the issues with you again when we can.

Good enough, take care of business. If you ever want to take a surf 'round centerfield, feel free. We have a variety of centrist posters, ranging from left-leaning to right-leaning, and we prize civil discourse, although as I am sure you know, even prizing it doesn't guarantee it. Haven't been round Totten in some time now, there seems to be less of the ad hominems and yelling that drove me off.

I'm still a fan, Michael.

hi guys

Hi Guys - Love Your Blog ,
Online Casinos: :Online Poker: :

Fascinating!

rick james ebony eyes @ rough sex @ round black ass @ round black butt @ round ebony ass @ round ebony booty @ round ebony butt @ sahara black porn star @ sample clip of ebony @ sample sex movie @ san diego ebony escort @ sex @ sex and the city @ sex bitch @ sex black tit @ sex blackwomen @ sex cam @ sex chat @ sex clip @ sex com @ sex comic @ sex cunt @ sex dating @ sex doll @ sex dvd @ sex education @ sex femmes @ sex film @ sex filme @ sex foto galeri @ sex fuck @ sex galeri @ sex galeri free @ sex galerie @ sex gallery @ sex game @ sex gratuis @ sex hard porn oral @ sex image @ sex in movie @ sex machine @ sex movi @ sex movi com @ sex movi frry @ sex movie @ sex movie black xxx @ sex movie clip @ sex movie com @ sex movie gallery @ sex movie online

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker

Very nice site. notebooki

online casino
online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia
order viagra online
online casino
online slots
phentermine
phentermine
levitra
tami flu
online poker
poker
poker
online poker
online poker
poker
poker

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service join free.

adult personals Adult personals online
personals
adult dating
adult dating sex dating
adult
personals adult personals sex dating
Internet Dating Service Internet Dating Service
dating
services dating services - adult dating
service
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult photo personals adult photo personals
sex
dating sex dating adult dating service
sex
dating sex dating adult personals
personals
personals adult personals
adult sex
dating adult sex dating adult personals
adult dating
online adult dating online adult personals
online
personals online personals adult personals
adult dating
service adult dating service adult
personals
adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult
personals
adult dating
adult dating service
adult dating
service adult dating service
adult dating
online adult dating online
single woman single woman
singles singles
singles match singles match
sexy singles sexy singles
singles dating singles dating
single dating single dating
dating service dating service
dating tips dating tips
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult personal ads adult personal ads
adult dating adult dating
adult singles adult singles
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult personal page adult personal page
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult photo personals adult photo personals
xx xx
adult personal ads adult personals ads
adult singles adult singles
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult personal page adult personal page
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult dating adult dating
personals ads personals ads
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult singles adult singles
adult single dating adult single dating
adult personal adult personal
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating online adult dating online
adult dating site adult dating site
adult swingers adult swingers
adult friend finder adult friend finder
xx xx
x x
singles adult singles adult
sexy singles sexy singles
singles personals singles personals
singles dating online singles dating online
adult singles dating adult singles dating
adult singles adult singles
singles site singles site
singles club singles club
singles dating service singles dating service
adult swingers adult swingers
adult personals adult personals
adult dating adult dating
singles on line singles on line
personals singles personals singles
sex personals sex personals
swingers swingers
swingers club swingers club
dating sex dating sex
personals sex personals sex
adult personals dating adult personals dating
online adult dating online adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult dating
sex dating sex dating
adult personals adult personals
personal ads personal ads
adult personal ads adult personal ads
free personals free personals
adult personals adult personals
sex dating sex dating
Autosurf For Cash autosurf for cash
Get Paid To Surf get paid to surf
satellite tv satellite tv
adult personals adult personals
sex site myspace.com sex site myspace.com
Discount Airfare discount airfare
Discount Hotels discount hotels
Discount Travel discount travel
Discount Cruises discount crusies
Discount Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms
Discount Car Rentals discount car rentals
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Vacations discount vacations
Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
Discount Air Travel discount air travel
Discounted Airfare discounted airfare
Airfare airfare
Levitra Generic Levitra
online pharmacy online pharmacy
Prozac Prozac
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
Cialis Generic cialis soft tabs
tadalafil tadalafil cialis
meridia generic meridia Sibutramine
Zenegra Zenegra
Celebrex Generic Celebrex Celecoxib
sildenafil sildenafil
sibutramine sibutramine Generic Meridia
celecoxib celecoxib Generic Celebrex online pharmacy
adult personals adult personals
home security home security
nanny cam nanny cam
nanny camera nanny camera
home security system home security system
home automation kits home automation kits
wireless camera systems wireless camera systems
universal remotes universal remotes
camera systems camera systems
home automation home automation
home security systems home security systems
credit card offer credit card offer

Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online
dating service adult singles join free.

boston celtics news boston celtics news rumors
charlotte bobcats news charlotte bobcats news rumors
miami heat news miami heat news rumors
new jersey nets news new jersey nets news rumors
new york knicks news new york knicks news rumors
orlando magic news orlando magic news rumors
Philadelphia 76ers news philadelphia 76ers news rumors
washington wizards news washington wizards news rumors
atlanta hawks news atlanta hawks news rumors
new orleans hornets news new orleans hornets news rumors
chicago bulls news chicago bulls news rumors
cleveland cavaliers news cleveland cavaliers news rumors
detroit pistons news detroit pistons news rumors
indiana pacers news indiana pacers news rumors
milwaukee bucks news milwaukee bucks news rumors
toronto raptors news toronto raptors news rumors
dallas mavericks news dallas mavericks news rumors
denver nuggets news denver nuggets news rumors
houston rockets news houston rockets news rumors
memphis grizzlies news memphis grizzlies news rumors
minnesota timberwolves news minnesota timberwolves news rumors
san antonio spurs news san antonio spurs news rumors
utah jazz news utah jazz news rumors
golden state warriors news golden state warriors news rumors
los angeles clippers newslos angeles clippers news rumors
los angeles lakers news los angeles lakers news rumors
phoenix suns news phoenix suns news rumors
portland trailblazers news portland trailblazers news rumors
sacramento kings news sacramento kings news rumors
seattle supersonics news seattle supersonics news rumors
tickets tickets
sports tickets sports tickets lakers tickets
concert tickets concert tickets
eagles concert tickets eagles concert tickets
theater tickets theater tickets
tickets tickets
nfl tickets nfl tickets
2006 super bowl tickets 2006 super bowl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
nba tickets nba tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
clippers tickets los angeles clippers tickets
boxing tickets boxing tickets
nascar tickets nascar tickets
tennis tickets tennis tickets us open
final four tickets final four tickets college basketball tickets
college football tickets college football tickets
rodeo tickets rodeo tickets pbr tickets
pbr tickets pbr tickets nfr
national finals rodeo tickets national finals rodeo tickets
2006 world cup tickets 2006 world cup tickets
soccer tickets soccer tickets world cup
wwe tickets wwe tickets raw smackdown
raw tickets wwe raw tickets
smackdown tickets wwe smackdown tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap los angeles lakers tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
lakers tickets la lakers tickets
cheap lakers tickets cheap lakers tickets
lakers season tickets lakers season tickets
lakers tickets lakers tickets
los angeles lakers tickets los angeles lakers tickets
2006 rose bowl tickets 2006 rose bowl tickets
pasadena rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
rose bowl tickets pasadena rose bowl tickets
bowl games bowl games cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
cheap super bowl tickets cheap super bowl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
nfl super bowl tickets nfl super bowl tickets
ducks tickets mighty ducks tickets tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
2005 world series tickets 2005 world series tickets bowl tickets
baseball world series baseball world series
world series world series
miami vice dvd miami vice dvd
miami vice miami vice
la live la live
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
music events music events
sporting event tickets sporting event tickets
all events all events
sports events sports events sporting event tickets sporting event tickets lakers tickets
music events concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tickets online concert tickets online
broadway tickets broadway tickets
broadway show broadway show
broadway musical broadway musical
nfl tickets nfl tickets
nfl football tickets nfl football tickets
cheap nfl tickets cheap nfl tickets
baseball tickets baseball tickets
mlb tickets mlb tickets
nba tickets nba tickets
basketball tickets basketball tickets
nhl hockey tickets nhl hockey tickets
nhl tickets nhl tickets
hockey tickets hockey tickets
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key dvd the skeleton key dvd
law and order dvd law and order dvd
serenity serenity
serenity dvd serenity dvd
the 40 year old virgin the 40 year old virgin
the 40 year old virgin dvd the 40 year old virgin dvd
the skeleton key the skeleton key
law and order dvd law and order
white sox world series tickets white sox world series tickets
chicago white sox world series tickets chicago white sox world series tickets
white sox tickets chicago white sox tickets
world series tickets world series tickets
baseball world series tickets baseball world series tickets
tarps tarps
discount tarps discount tarps
covers covers
discount covers covers
hollywood club hollywood club
club club
music site myspace.com music site myspace.com
700 sundays tickets 700 sundays tickets
wilshire theatre wilshire theatre
wilshire theatre tickets wilshire theatre tickets
700 sundays 700 sundays
Buy cheap concert tickets for audioslave, 2005 rolling stones concert tickets as well as the eagles concert tickets plus kanye west in concert and keith urban buy depeche mode tickets you can even buy paul mccartney concert tickets gwen stefani of no doubt concert tickets don't miss 311 in concert if you have children the wiggles concert tickets would be a great choice plus get all concert tour schedule for 2005 music events.
concerts concerts
concert schedule concert schedule
concert dates concert dates
concert tickets concert tickets
cheap concert tickets cheap concert tickets
concert tour concert tour
kanye west concert tickets kanye west concert tickets
rolling stones tour rolling stones tour
rolling stones tickets rolling stones tickets
eagles concert eagles concert
the eagles the eagles
audioslave tickets audioslave tickets
depeche mode tickets depeche mode tickets
gwen stefani tickets gwen stefani tickets
paul mccartney tickets paul mccartney tickets
paul mccartney tour paul mccartney tour
paul mccartney concert paul mccartney concert
paul mccartney 2005 tour paul mccartney 2005 tour
paul mccartney 2005 us tour paul mccartney 2005 us tour
bon jovi tickets bon jovi tickets
bon jovi concert bon jovi concert
bon jovi tour bon jovi tour
bon jovi tour dates bon jovi tour dates
bon jovi concert dates bon jovi concert dates
bon jovi concert schedule bon jovi concert schedule
rolling stones concert tickets rolling stones concert tic