Free Dating Site    

Namegame: I said no retaliation. There was no retaliation against Al Qaeda. No one is talking about criminal trials against low-level perps, who weren't even actual Al Qaeda members (just low-level associates of Al Qaeda). You don't need a Commander In Chief for that. A sporadic, poorly-planned missile strike or two over an 8 year period doesn't constitute effective retaliation. Also, the U.S.S. Cole attack happened well over 3 months before Bush took office. The Clintons own the failure to respond to that attack, too.

Hillary, standing by her man lost her a lot of respect from the people she wants to serve. It truly shows she supports liars & cheaters from the get go.

When you coordinate efforts with the World Bank...

"If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."
--Bill Clinton

Namegame2: regarding your message #127, it is an undeniable fact that it was Clinton's total ineptitude that allowed radical Islamic fascism to thrive under his watch. This man was more concerned with the country's reputation (plus his personal pleasures) than with the country's SAFETY.

"All right. You've covered your ass, now."

President Bush, after being advised of the possibility of an attack by a CIA briefer

HOST: Alright Fred, you and a few other journalists were in the Oval Office with the President, right? And he says catching Osama bin Laden is not job number one?

BARNES: Well, he said, look, you can send 100,000 special forces, that’s the figure he used, to the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and hunt him down, but he just said that’s not a top priority use of American resources. His vision of a war on terror is one that involves intelligence to find out from people, to get tips, to follow them up and break up plots to kill Americans before they occur. That’s what happened recently in that case of the planes that were to be blown up by terrorists, we think coming from England, and that’s the top priority. He says, you know, getting Osama bin Laden is a low priority compared to that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/

Yes, mathematically speaking she behind in terms of delegates, popular vote and # of states

The Democratic Party in the United States needs a senior figure - George Mitchell, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter - to avoid a political train wreck.

The disaster-in-waiting isn't the nomination of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or the over-hyped furor over the role of "superdelegate" professional politicians in selecting the party's standard-bearer.

It is over Michigan and Florida; in any closely contested presidential race, these will be two of the biggest prizes. With an inept party chairman, Howard Dean, there is a risk that the two states will be shut out of the Democratic convention, or be seated in a way that blows up the party.

This fight may seem like a dull, arcane rules dispute. Yet it might determine the next president, so stick with this for a brief bit of background.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties set dates for when the states could hold their primaries or caucuses. This was reasonable; otherwise, a billboard war of attention would have taken place, pushing the election calendar forward to 2007 and lengthening an already-too-protracted process.

Today in Americas
Sniping by aides hurt Clinton's image as managerGermany likely to pose challenge for McCainMinisters want more done about warmingMoreover, it was wisely decided that smaller states should go first, or else money alone would determine who would win.

Florida and Michigan could have set their primaries or caucuses anywhere from mid-February to June. Instead, they decided to violate the rules and schedule January contests in hopes of attracting more focus.

The two parties had agreed they wouldn't play this game, which ignored the rules. The Republicans wisely devised a compromise where the two states were allowed to vote early while losing half their delegates. Foolishly, the Democrats didn't do the same.

Clinton, the only person whose name was on the ballot, won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote; she also captured the Florida race, where no one campaigned or advertised.

These were shams. Evidence of that: Democratic turnout has soared everywhere this year - running far ahead of the other party even in Republican-leaning states. In Texas, there were almost three million Democratic voters on March 4, twice as many as the Republicans. In Michigan and Florida, the Democratic turnout was less than that of the Republicans, because voters knew the contests didn't matter.

Before the voting season began, when Clinton thought she was the all-but-certain nominee, she vowed not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries and agreed that they shouldn't matter.

"It's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything," she said of the Michigan contest last year in New Hampshire.

Now that she's fallen behind, she's saying these make-believe contests should be included as if she had actually scored competitive victories.

The bottom line: the Democrats face three options, ranging from cataclysmic to problematic:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, America's highest-ranking Democrat and the chairman of the convention, has said it would be unacceptable to have delegations that didn't play by the rules be "dispositive" of the outcome. If that were the case, a large percentage of the Obama forces would justifiably walk out.

In any close general election, Florida, with 27 electoral votes, and Michigan, with 17, are among the most important battlegrounds. To stiff these crucial states would be political suicide.

The Obama people would love caucuses, where they have been successful because they are better organized.

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Clinton supporter, protests that holding caucuses would be unfair because "maybe only 50,000 people will show up" to participate. Florida has six times the population of Iowa, where about 240,000 Democrats voted in the January caucuses, or almost fivefold what Nelson predicts for Florida.

Of course, Iowans had the benefit of a freezing snowy night.

The Clinton camp prefers primaries, which are costly and for which no one seems willing yet to pick up the tab.

The Democratic National Committee should foot the bill - though in another display of Dean's incompetence, it doesn't have the money, because it's the party's only election committee that is faltering on fund-raising.

It's time to take this away from the parochial interests of the dueling camps and the Democratic National Committee. Pelosi and other party leaders should force Dean to pick an arbiter or a small committee to resolve this matter quickly.

Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, would be the ideal choice. Every blue-ribbon panel he's headed, the most recent being over drug use in baseball, has been credible and contributed much. If he's not available, other respected figures who aren't in either camp might include former Vice President Gore or former President Carter.

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary
Sunday, March 09, 2008Amanda GarrettPlain Dealer Reporter
A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

What exactly is/was her experience Bikeman?

A good read on the confusion of those states