The caucuses in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire are drawing near and the Democratic voters in those States finally started paying attention to the field. They realized that 1) Hillary is the most conservative Democratic candidate; and 2) that she is the least electable Democratic candidate with swing and weak Republican voters. Above all else, after eight years of George Bush, Democrats want to win. And Hillary gravely endangers our chances of winning.

This use of the word "cocaine" by one of the highest ranking officials of the Clinton campaign was not an accident. Nor was the fact that it occurred on a network with a lot of viewers who are swing and weak Republican voters. He could have just have easily said "drug use" or even "Mr. Shaneen's lamentable statements." Pros like this choose every work very carefully. If anything, this is the best proof that Shaheen's remarks were, if not actually sanctioned by the campaign, at least tacitly sanctioned.

I don't know much about Ms. Winehouse or her music, but your lead sentence caught my eye -- "We're all expecting Amy Winehouse to die." Well, everyone was expecting the same of Keith Richards forty years or so ago, too. Who expected Keith to be rockin' at 63?

Not that I want him to be my President, or anything, but a guy who pardoned Keith Richards can't be all bad!

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/07/20/News/336946.html

For a while I thought that this was a fairly thoughtful article until I got the the cheap shot a John Edwards. For you to simply dismiss hims because he's younger and white is chicken-shit and short sighted. He's a damned sight better candidate than Hillary no matter how unfair this flare up about a photograph is. Maybe if the media would stop focusing on the two way dream matchup and try to actually cover the race and help the people decide who is the best candidate, he would actually get mention in more than snarky asides.

It is so disheartening to see such negative and personal attacks against come out against Mayor Giuiani . . . before he gets the nomination and the general election is held.

After that, I'd be tickled shitless.

As much as I am fond of my friend Jim Hightower, I think the credit for popularizing the line "born on third and thinks he hit a triple" as applied to George Bush goes to the late and much missed Ann Richards in her "Poor George" speech at the 1998 Democratic Convention keynote speech.

An aside: My favorite lines from the same speech.

"Twelve years ago Barbara Jordan, another Texas woman, Barbara made the keynote address to this convention, and two women in a hundred and sixty years is about par for the course.

But if you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."

Lord we need more voices like Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Charlie Wilson on a few occasions. And while I haven't seen the movie, I think that to the extent that the criticism is aimed at Charlie for being dishonest, it's not warranted. I know for a fact from hearing interviews with Con. Wilson shortly after the book appeared that he will freely admit that the aid that was given to the Afghans ended up fueling subsequent anti-American jihadist movements. In short, he knows that there was blow-back.

But the lesson of the entire operation do go beyond the doctrine of unforeseen consequences, although that may be the primary lesson to be learned given the subsequent turn of events. It was never Rep. Wilson's intent, nor was anyone really warning, that the blow back would include direct attacks on America. While there were those in the CIA that objected to the program, their primary fear was that we would be funding or providing arms to those who would directly kill Soviet soldiers. That was considered to be a heretofore unprecedented provocation. However, the opposition within the CIA was not, as I understand it, focused on Islamic blow back.

The article seems to give awfully short shrift to the only candidate who actually DID something -- John Edwards. Edwards actually call Musharraf. Surely he said a bit more about the conversation that you related. But instead of substance we get to head about how Chelsea had a play date with the Bhutto kids. Jezz . . . . And short shrift to Sen. Bidden, too, while I'm at it.

"A Bloomberg candidacy would have no purpose other than satisfy his bottomless personal lust for attention and bestow the wise old men threatening the country with his candidacy with some fleeting sense of rejuvenated relevance and wisdom. His political views are conventional in every way and he's little more than an establishment-enabling figurehead. The whole attraction to his candidacy has nothing to do with any issues or substance and everything to do with an empty addiction to vapid notions of Establishment harmony and a desire to exert control, whereby our Seriousness guardians devote themselves to a candidate for reasons largely unrelated to his policies or political views, thus proving themselves, as usual, to be the exact antithesis of actual seriousness."

Preach on, Borther Glen, preach on!!!

If John Edwards doesn't win, he's toast. But I'm sure even the gospel according to Salon won't suggest that Hillary should drop out, even if she comes in third!! What a screwed up double standard, well coiffed or not!

Glenn Greenwald has recently written quite convincingly on how threatening the candidacies of Edwards and Huckabee are to the party regulars. I just didn't expect Salon to be part of the cadre of those who quaked in their boots at the prospect or real change. Shame you for your obvious bias and being driven by fear.