IMHO, it's unfair to say Hillary Clinton has "provoked the most intense hatred."

She's the recipient of the conservative movement's irrational hate for her family. I can't think of a single thing she's done to "provoke" the rightwing hate that's being dumped on her.

I thought it was rather obvious. She's a competitor for the affections of the corporate class.

The problem Republicans have with her is that all that corporate largesse will start flowing in the direction of moderately (relatively) right-leaning Democrats, rather than bankrolling the ambitions of hard-core militarists.

Liberals, including yours truly, have a bone to pick with her on policy matters and a few disappointing statements on the campaign trail, but I don't feel particularly provoked to hate her, either.

Nor do I. But her politics, however moderately right-wing, are still wrongheaded. And she is playing a very dangerous game with the neocons, triangulating to the right to obtain 'credibility' with the corporatist set. Hillary could end up as America's version of Benazir Bhutto. Obama, unfortunately, appears to be playing a similar game.

Fair enough.

But tell me. How much do you suppose US military expenditures should be increased in order to properly fulfill its mission, in the long run?

You still haven't answered any of my questions, and still haven't answered any of the hundreds of objections to your posts.

Why not? Sheer cowardice? Or because you can't, not without further exposing yourself as a vicious extremist?

You know you have no credibility here. Why do you continue to post? We're not just feeding your masochistic tendencies, are we?

Any one of these incidents should serve to discredit Bush. Half a dozen should serve to discredit him completely.

Your list of dozens of them, along with dozens of others you had listed earlier which are at least as serious, should serve to demonstrate that those who suppose Bush to be anything other than a greedy and incompetent criminal are themselves lacking any credibility.

And there are lots of such lists.

Don't you wish everybody would just shut up about the Bush administration's military imperialism, rapacity, lying, greed, cover-ups, smear campaigns, torture camps, crimes of treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and assorted genocidal screw-ups?

Well? Don't you?

What is so tragic about this discourse created by Glenn's "here comes the nigger siren card" is that we have in our lifetime given the legacy of our own country's depraved contempt for us the possibility of having a Black President!!

GG has in no way expressed any 'depraved contempt' for Obama's candidacy.

What he has done is to accurately point out that radical Republicans are already gearing up to trash Obama as a black candidate.

In other words, you're lying, engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. And rather baldly at that.

Thanks for your interest Walter, but I'm afraid, as I said yesterday to another poster, I only answer questions from those posters who are rational.

Translation: "I dare not answer your questions, and cannot argue against your facts or reasoning. How about a lame smear instead?"

You're compounding your dishonesty, neocon. And you're still quite devoid of any credibility.

Why do you bother?

Is Thrasher he dumbest Freeper ever, or a black person so poisoned by his views of racism he projects it on everyone else? Given Thrasher's homophobic and anti-semetic digs I guess it could be either...

'Thrasher' is a WASP neocon posing as a black male for the purpose of attempting to discredit a rather obvious set of observations on the part of GG because they contradict lying Republican propaganda.

We can expect neocon poseurs to be increasingly common, vocal, and deranged here for the duration of the election cycle.

You're not fighting Jim Crow laws anymore.

We're still fighting Jim Crow attitudes. Racist attitudes. Like yours.

Get it?

How much do you suppose military expenditures should be decreased in order to become a more moral nation?

A fair question.

Let's start with the 25% that the Pentagon can't even account for. Since they don't know what they did with it, they'll never miss it:

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Fair enough?

Thrasher most certainly is a genuine American black man.

I think it's just horrible that you'd denigrate African-Americans that way. In my experience, they're better than that. A lot better.

In truth during the civil rights era especially with many white liberal jews it was thier white paternalism which created a disconnect between many Blacks and so-called progressive whites.

Sheer invention. What disconnect?

And what, pray tell, distinguishes a "progressive white" from a "so-called progressive white"?

What "white paternalism"? Do you really prefer white racism? Or don't you believe there is such a thing - except among "progressive whites"?

Do you believe Southern white reactionaries to lack racism, compared to "progressive whites"?

I think the US should use its current position as sole superpower to promote international law and cooperation.

How does your position differ from that of neoconservatives?

By the way. You avoided my last question.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/05/obama/permalink/27612ace069896888e1dd8aed22143f6.html

Got an answer?