Re: "Hillary's sense of entitlement"

a) Are you mind reading?

b) Or mindlessly repeating the "popular wisdom"?

c) Or can you provide a citation that can support your assertion?

One would think her obvious skills as a candidate would show that her candidacy was much more substantial than merely due to a "sense of entitlement."

BTW, I am an Obama supporter. I just hate to see character assassination mindlessly regurgitated.

Shame on you.

Fool me two, three, four times, I must be a Democratic congressional "leader."

Pathetic...

Been there, done that.

After eight years of a president who posed as a "tough guy" (and who, not coincidentally, was the worst president in US history), "thoughtful," "contemplative," and "wise" are the characteristics that are more likely to appeal to the electorate.

We can hope, anyway.

Whoever the Dems nominate and presumably elect (barring wholesale GOP election theft or a conveniently timed "national emergency" that cancels the election), the next president will have daunting challenges; cleaning up the mess created by decades of utterly irrational Republican policies.

Deficits out the wazoo, a third-world level national debt, manufacturing operations leaving the country in droves, a non-existent energy policy an unnecessary and unsustainable occupation of Iraq, and most likely a recession -- these are the simultaneous crises that will confront the next president.

Can any Republican hope to deal with these issues when the GOP base seems to only obsess over more ruinous tax cuts, the third-tier problem of illegal immigrants and (horrors!) issues of sexuality?

If the Wallace interview was anything like Bush's "press conferences," the question was submitted, approved and the response scripted in advance.

The framing and response simultaneously allowed: a) Bush's critics to be portrayed as overly concerned with "the rights of those who want to kill us," and b) let Bush provide a rational-sounding, "above-the-fray" presidential response.

Does anyone really think that's the way Bush and his nomenklatura describe their critics behind closed doors?

It was a two-fer. And today's corporate media -- especially Fox -- is only too happy to whore themselves for a little face time.

Not that it's on-topic, but do you happen to have any daughters?

If so, can we assume you would not object if someone publicly suggested on national TV that you were "pimping" your daughter?

Objecting is one thing, demanding someone be fired and threatening the network is something else. But more importantly, it was a comment about the parents not Chelsea. In fact, Shuster had nothing but good things to say about her before and after the comment.

This is nothing more than playing the victim yet again, while simultaneously exacting heavy handed retribution. Considering that MSNBC had no problem with Olberman using the exact language referring to Bush, this is just pitiful. MSNBC stands for Making Sure Nobody Bashes Clinton.

As always, you refused to answer my question regarding how you would react if it was your daughter and you were accused of pimping her.

Oh yeah, it's OK if it's the Clintons. Heh.

As always, you refused to answer my question regarding how you would react if it was your daughter and you were accused of pimping her. Oh yeah, it's OK if it's the Clintons. Heh.

I can't answer that because I would never put my daughter in the position of soliciting votes. If Billary were really concerned about their daughter, they wouldn't have put her in the public spotlight.

So anything goes if it's politics (and only if it's the Clintons). That's lame -- even for you.

If you (God forbid) were to ever run for office, your children would never, ever support your campaign in any way?

Is there a Lee J. Cobb / "12 Angry Men" issue here?

The WSJ and others in the Bush stiff-arm-salute crowd are able to get a lot of traction with their ludicrous amnesty arguments because congressional Dems refuse to mount any type of organized political opposition.

Reid and Rockefeller, as GG has so ably argued, are even complicit in this disgusting sell-out to anti-democratic corporate interests. If Senate Dems aren't fighting, we can't expect the M$M to even report on the controversy -- much less provide "balanced" coverage.

When only left-wing bloggers are fighting for the "American Way," it's going to be a long hard slog. Our debauched congressional Dems need to learn they will pay a political price for their complacency.

Are there 41 senators smart enough to understand the significance of what they are voting on, and patriotic enough to torpedo this obvious assault on our liberty?

Or is our Democrat-controlled Senate a whore-house?

I think the real 'fault line' here is between the mainstream of security-minded Americans and...

The far left, whose default position is to blame American first, and who regard the war on terror as a purely domestic law enforcement issue.

Mainstream America is the 70% or so that understands that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, and that our occupation is counter-productive to the so-called "war on terror."

For the other 30%, criticism of the government is to "blame America first" but only when the mis- and malfeasance is by the Republicans.

I suspect you'll find out who's in the mainstream this November.

Certainly this would put us more in the mainstream of the global community. Shame on you for promoting American exceptionalism. Shame.

American exceptionalism? Land of the free and home of the brave? The old tired, weary, teeming masses yearning to be free? The shining city on a hill?

That's so pre-9/11.

Now we're just another emerging police state with a rapidly deteriorating third-world economy.