Meanwhile, Democratic activists in Connecticut continued to focus their political fury on one of their own, pushing the party ever closer to a repeat of the self-immolating 1968 nominating convention in Chicago.

------

This is so true. Those activists should have let Mayor Daly and his cronies select the presidential candidate in 1968. Instead they made Daly use his police to beat them up.

Same goes for today. There ought to be a law to stop primaries against incumbants, especially one hand picked and bankrolled by Bill Buckley.

And who needs democracy anyway except maybe countries the US and Lieberman want to invade.

Doug Crockett

"A Murtha victory could create hard feelings among Hoyer allies, especially moderate Democrats."

Is that a Leiberman Democrat? Someone who supports the Iraq War, right-wing Supreme Court nominees, the anti-citizen bankruptcy act, the GOP energy bill?

I don't pretent to know a great deal about Hoyer but I understand he broke ranks on the GOP bankruptcy and energy bills.

Are the Democratic non-moderates the extremist counterpart of the GOP neocons?

Doug Crockett

Both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have stated that Iran is a threat to Israel and the US and all options against Iran should be on the table.

All this within a week of recognising their errors in approving the invasion of Iraq.

Obviously their support of military options against Iran emboldens Bush and gives his warmongering legitimacy. Just like they did for Iraq.

Is Salon becoming a propaganda vehicle for Hillary? Sure seems like it.

Her position on Iran is just like her pre-war position on Iraq. "All options must be kept on the table." She won't admit she made a mistake on Iraq because she remains a middle east hawk. I'd like a choice beyond least worst.

If the choice the big money is going to give us is Hillary vs some Republican wingnut, Mr. Bloomberg might make a sensible pragmatic alternative.

Why is Salon printing a rehash of the October 2004 essay by the same authors under current news? Are you that hard up for content or is Al Gore looking too good next to Hillary? Maybe a far fetched motive but the contents are basically 3 years old and the only outstanding feature of this convoluted essay is its obtuseness.

This article reported that maybe the anti-war Democrats will vote against Hillary. I don't consider myself part of an anti-war faction of the party. I was in favor of the military action in the Balkans for example.

But of all the bad things Bush has done Iraq is the worst. And he'd like to repeat it in Iran. Hillary too. Hillary says she'd do Iraq all over again given the same pre-war "intelligence" which the rest of the world saw through. And she's doing it all over again with Iran. "All options on the table," "would use violence against Iran," giving the green light to attack Iran to Bush on the Iran army are terrorists vote.

Hillary has positioned herself as one candidate committed to continue Bush's disasterous policy of ME warfare. I have no intention of voting for that.

Sweeping the negative facts under the rug. Hillary C. voted for the Iraq War and says she do it all over again with similar obviously flawed facts. And she's done it all over again with the Kyl-Lieberman resolution which effectively authorizes Bush to attack Iran.

Obama ducked out on that vote but Dodd, to his credit voted against it. The differences, which this article skates over, are what the candidates have done not political verbiage about negotiations. Hillary Clinton by her actions has sided and continues to side with the neo-cons on Middle Eastern policy.

Fact: Hillary said she believed flawed "intelligence" re Iraq and voted for the invasion.

Fact: Hillary says she believed flawed "intelligence" and voted, in essence, to permit Bush to attack/invade Iran.

Fact: Unlike Hillary, weapons inspectors, foreign policy experts and just about everyone I know correctly doubted the reliability of the intelligence touted by the Bush administration as justification for invading Iraq & Iran.

Based on her actual actions on critical ME questions, Hillary is a failure. Experience is great but it needs to be accompanied by common sense.

It's not just the Iraq vote. She had plenty of company there. But don't forget the Iran vote giving Bush the same green light on Iran she gave him on Iraq based the same faulty intelligence. I doubt she's that dumb to be fooled even once by trumped up "intelligence." But it's either that or she's an out and out ME hawk and not very acceptable to folks who think Iraq was a big mistake and don't want more of the same.

Of course she's luke warm defending social security. She's a kingpin in the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing think tank dressed in Democratic Party drag that wants to reduce social security benefits "progressively."

See http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Hillary wasn't behind the lawsuit. It's her supporters. So it has nothing to do with her?

Reminds me of the White House leaking a CIA operative's name. Bush didn't lift a finger to ID the culprit. He was supposed to be above it all. Salon among others pointed out his responsibility.

Not so for Hillary though. Get real. If she wanted to stop it, it would have been done at once.

It sometimes seems that Salon is so partisan, it's part of Hillary Clinton's official campaign.

Certainly seems that way. I feel I'm contributing to the Clinton campaign when I pay for my Salon subscription.

This piece is not reporting, it's political spin.