Jack Kingston is a typical Republican hypocrite...it is a party of phonies, dissemblers, and greedy fat cats who have no authenticity. Repugs live in logic tight compartments allowing themselves to do anything and say anything while the rest of us have to live by the rules.

Again...another phony Republican shooting off his mouth! It is astonishing how they can torture logic. Appalling hypocrisy is their stock and trade!

RPhillips, I don't think the Dem's are into ruling Iraq from a Bagdad Embassy. I think they mean that there will be some kind of U.S. presence in Iraq for some time, namely in an advisory capacity. That doesn't mean a huge force necessarily. Personally, I think it is our responsibility to provide a small presence since we tore up the place so badly. Of course, this is contingent on the state of civil unrest and danger to the these advisors...we may have to leave completely.

By the way, If the Dem's want to attack Iran, how come Hillary sent the White House a message that they had better not attack Iran without congressional approval? For this, she was attacked by the New York Times which suddenly began finding all kinds of flaws with her voice, referring to her cackle. Message here: a candidate must not incur the wrath of Aipac; the elite press will paint the candidate in ugly pictures.

One more thing, if Eisenhower got us out of Korea, how come we are still there?

How are we to know the truth if we have to hide from it or, at the very least, glide over uncomfortable realities? Definitely, it is possible to be too negative and punishing; however, so many of the environmentalists I have listened to keep saying that we do have time to make some changes which will ensure a future that is not so bleak if we do nothing.

What we have here rather than in Europe where environmentalism is acceptable, is a loud, well-funded right wing willing to blurt out any lie in order to facilitate an agenda. That agenda is to diminish the scope of governmental interference in the pursuit of making the almighty dollar. Of course, anyone so inclined or who has worked very hard to get his Hummer believes Rush and his cohorts when they contend that liberals are pushing a lie about the environment, never mind that this makes no sense. The left wing believes the scientists because we are of that frame of mind. But we are just as likely as the next guy to resist making some changes in our lifestyle.

This article leaves me baffled. How do we face the truth before we are hit on the head with it. Yes, the earth will survive, but we might not like the consequences of bleating on about the sanctity of life and how well the human race is doing when New York gets hit by a Category Five because of not addressing the issue of global warming!

I think Joan Walsh has hit it on the head...Clinton will put up a fight and Democrats want that. Edwards is my first choice and has been all along but should Hillary get the nomination, I expect her to wage a battle to be remembered. Of all the candidates, she is the most experienced without a doubt. She just happens to be more conservative than I like. Obama is a fabulous speaker but too inexperienced and I do not believe that a majority of Americans will set aside the race issue. Also, he isn't the fighter I would like to see go against the conservative hate machine. Even Edwards was too milk toasty with Cheney in their head to head during the last campaign. Despite that, I like where he stands on the issues...his campaign speaks to my values!

This is a newsworthy story not being covered by the mainstream news outlets, a newsworthy fact in itself!

I think Clinton was opposed to unilaterally going into Iraq without first letting Hans Blix finish his work; that said, I am still furious with Hillary and Schumer (all the schmucks) who rubber stamped this incredibly stupid incursion into a sovereign nation. We had no business doing it when justification was so dubious, and under no circumstances, do I think we should it again. Sometimes, a politician must buck the tide, especially when it is potentially another Vietnam...and the parallels were clear even at that time! Unfortunately, Hillary was into pleasing the Aipac crowd and still is. That is why I am for Edwards.

The effect on Hillary's campaign may be enormous. While her vote on calling Iran a terrorist state may have played well with the Jewish community, it was not enthusiastically received by Democrats, independents, and the youth and may account for her losses in the latest polls. In her desire to woo conservatives, she showed herself, again, to be a dupe of the Republican spin machine. This makes her appear too willing to sell out and Democrats who had feared this about her may well interpret her vote this way.

Romney is the consummate opportunist...if religion gets in his way, he'll shed it; if it behooves him to mouth platitudes, he'll do that. He changes positions to suit his ambitions...that's Romney.

Joe Conason offers the most rational reaction to Romney's speech and to Huckabee that I have heard. I am so sick of these Bible-thumping hypocrites!

I think Clinton has been too conservative and has offended many in the Democratic base with various votes such as calling Iran a terrorist state. She has based her campaign on taking a restrained stance...perhaps successful in a national campaign against Republicans but not very appealing to Democrats.