The Beltway is the only reason why America, despite the wide disgust at the two party system, still has a two party system. Without the Beltway telling people to not waste their vote, without the Beltway belittling all things liberal, without them the vast majority of Americans would self identify as liberal and not be ashamed of liberalism.

There is nothing wrong with believing that the young should care for the old, there is nothing wrong with believing that talking beats fighting, there is nothing wrong with the strong protecting the weak.

These are universal ideals in most moral works - but now they are rebranded by the beltway as being all about nanny statism, rather then the American people wanting to get something a little bit more significant for their tax dollars then simply another war in a conveniently strange and far-away land.

In common parlance A thug isn't defined by a criminal record. A thug is defined by thuggish behavior (Such as ganging up on people, bullying, etc...)

When those kids beat the heck out of that white kid, they crossed over into the realm of being thugs - criminal records or not.

A convicted criminal isn't always a thug and a thug isn't always a convicted criminal, they are seperate ideas.

Them being black is purely discriptive. They could equally well have been described as tall, short, fat or skinny thugs.

She won't be president. Sorry, giggling doesn't cut it in a presidential candidate. That giggle tells everyone that she isn't taking it seriously, and right now, you want somebody who will take things seriously.

Bush came from a party famous for "tough" party with a vague sense of inhumanity. The war-hawk and the pencil pusher calling for austerity from an ivory tower of wealth if you will. He could laugh without it making him look weak.

Hillary, comes from a party of wussies. Face it, the last few months have shown nothing more then Democratic party weakness in the face of a widely despised figure who has resulted in a fair portion of the Republicans in America being to embarrassed to admit it, on the internet where for all intents and purposes, they are anonymous.

They don't want their nicknames, adopted for the pure purpose of getting flamed on liberal boards, associated with the Republican party. That is how bad Bush's presidency has been and the Democrats are still to "timid" to really challenge him.

Hillary needs to come across strong because the stain of Democratic weakness, particularly in light of her more or less admitting (Without having the guts to come out and say it) that the Iraq war was wrong, and trying to make it look like she was decieved, she has just repeated the exact same mistake with Iran.

She will be painted as the one thing worse then a robot when she tries to take the Republicans, who are really in 2008 for survival, a weak robot. You know, kind of like that candidate the Democrats ran in 2004.

The giggling isn't going to help her. The Iron Lady image on the other hand, just might.

The fact that the precedent is against Rather - even if he is telling the truth.

Look up Jane Akre and Steve Wilson.

Yeah, because we all know how hitting girls is what really makes a man, "manly."

Yeah, that's why not a single 9/11 hijacker was an Iraqi, no links were found between Saddam and 9/11, and why a Saudi Arabian oil-prince who hated Saddam and everything he stood for, was ultimately behind 9/11.

Last I checked 9/11 happened in 2001. Not 1997.

Further the war on the Taliban was due to them refusing to hand Osama Bin Laden over, they were sheltering him.

They were also playing host to terrorist training camps and sheltering other figures tied to the attacks.

Meanwhile Iraq, which had no links whatsoever to the attacks got invaded because a Saudi oil prince (of the Bin Laden family, which was flown out of America shortly after 9/11) was upset over America putting army bases on Saudi Arabian soil. (You know, the whole issue that got him started.)

What, you think Bill Clinton could do no wrong or something?

That nothing, ever went wrong while Bill was president?

He didn't do a bad job and, he might just be remembered as a great president when history revisits his two terms, but nobody is capable of being right all the time. Even Bill wasn't that amazing, he could be wrong.

We leave the leader-worship to you righties, who seem to conflate the military, which is supposed to be politically neutral in order to safeguard America's democracy, with a political figure.

While Osama might have been to some extent motivated by Iraqi's suffering (or at least putting on a show of it) that still doesn't link him to Saddam Hussein or make Iraq responsible for Osama.

They didn't ask him to do anything, Saddam didn't even like Saddam.

A direct quote from him volunteering, at the opening of the Kuwait war (Thankyou Wikipedia):

[Bin Laden:] I am ready to prepare 100,000 fighters with good combat capability within three months. You don't need American. You don't need any other non-Muslim troops. We will be enough.

And lets not forget...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

No, you don't actually. The whole purpose of impeachment is that it ammounts to being a trial. You don't have to prove a criminal guily before you try him, you have to prove that you have a case.

That Rather's bosses didn't like him, or that the American media is incompetent?

Thankyou for the correction.