I think this trashing of Sen. Clinton is crazy. It's like the past 6 1/2 years hasn't happened, and we have the luxury of picking the perfect candidate. We don't. The only thing important is to NOT elect another republican.

I think most of the negatives for Clinton are cases of projection or misinformation. Beware all the right-wing and idiot MSM characterizations that you may be falling for. Drop everything you THINK you know about her, and just judge for yourself with some dispassionate study. I doubt you'll see her the same way. If after that you still think she's some unelectable harpy, have at it.

I for one think she'd make a fine president, but she only has to be moderately good to make a gigantic improvement over the nightmare we have now. That's all I care about, get the assholes out.

If Sen. Clinton becomes the democratic nominee, I'm going to vote for her. If Edwards or Obama become the nominee, I'll vote for either of them. Thankfully we don't have to worry about Lieberman, because he's definitely one I'd have to think long and hard about (the only thing in his favor would be he doesn't [so far] have -R after his name), and I'm sure I could not vote for him, since he's a traitor in every meaning of the word.

So, please keep your wits about you, everyone, and vote for whoever the democrat is. That's the only real choice we have. It's not a choice between the perfect candidate and someone else, it's between continued nightmare of more republicans, and the democrat. That should be everyone's focus. I understand having a debate about who among our choices would be the best democrat, the top 3 choices would all make a plenty good enough candidate. This demonizing of any of them, however, is reckless, and to me, foolish.

--Ron Robertson

But (don't you just hate that?), I noticed, and a few others noticed that Cohen's article would have been completely different if Scooty had been a democrat, don't you think?

Oh well, that's not really your point, anyway, since the essay is really about the mindset of these foolish beltway pundits.

I thought Ace of Spades' stuff might have been satire, but I wasn't sure. It does get difficult to tell sometimes. Still, I tend to wonder when someone is really over-the-top. I had to laugh at Holly's (it was her, I think) comment that she'll never understand men.

As far as Bucky1, I've missed too much of the prior commentaries to understand the vituperativeness of the responses in both directions, so I'll withhold judgment, except on one thing: why the strong interest in which candidate other people here are backing (assuming everyone has made up their mind, which I suspect is not a safe assumption)? You stray into projection by assigning motives to why people are not saying who they'll back. I think you're probably a good guy with good motives (I base that on your well-spoken comment that Mr. Greenwald probably doesn't want people worshipping what he says), though perhaps your ability to express them needs a bit of honing. Maybe calm down, take a breath, and try again without doing any projecting? It really is a mistake that will cloud anything you say.

There's probably a lot of suspicion about Libertarians because far too often they're just right-wing republicans afraid to call themselves that (for whatever reason), as becomes clear when they start trying to curb the right of women to make reproductive choices, the rights of gay people, etc. Their only correspondence to Libertarian philosophy is typically their attitude towards taxation.

Overall, the respondents to Mr. Greenwald's writings are about the best I've ever come across on the internet. Gives me a small measure of hope for our country.

--Ron Robertson

Thanks for putting up that link. Pretty fascinating responses (and not in a good way) from Mr. Cohen. He fails to answer the underlying point that because Scooty impeded the investigation it's not known what all was covered up, but clearly there was a cover-up or else why would Scooty risk so much to lie?

I also love how thin-skinned Cohen was, down-right insulting and condescending to the people who dared question his judgment from on high.

--Ron Robertson

I don't get the fascination people have ever had for her. She's like Camille Paglia/Ann Coulter, a professional offensivist who seems to basically hate everything and everyone, perhaps even themselves. She's moderately clever, but that's hardly a qualification for her prominent position at the NYT or in the media. Really, did the NYT searched the world over and not find someone better than Dowd? Why IS she there? What is her purpose? Disdainful amusement? She's worse than unneeded, she's harmful.

--Ron Robertson

<<Did...

all you progressives sit around your computers and laugh hysterically at the hillary video? Weere their tears in your eyes and cramps in your midsections from laughing so hard?

"Oh my god! She's making Bill eat healthy! I....can't....stop...laughing!"

Hysterical.--Tiberius>>

What's your point? That you think somehow that you're clever? Judging by your other burbles online, i doubt you have a point, you seem to have the same goals in life of a mold on bread.

--Ron

So, you can do hyperbole:

Undoubtedly, the Apple ideal will be cyberjacks built into your skull that project images and sound into your head, such as in the Shadowrun universe or the Ghost in the Shell anime series. Imagine trying to walk down the street while a spreadsheet, an image of your child and an incoming phone call from your boss pushes into your consciousness. There'll sure be a lot more pedestrians running into traffic or into poles.

But, are you virtuous?

Seriously, this slippery slope argument you're making is just plain silly, and a ridiculous case of projection.