I know that many Obama supporters hail his opposition of the "war" in Iraq (I do not consider it a war because like the conflict in Viet Nam, it is an ill advised police action). However, as he has shown during his time in the Senate, he does not take the independent role when there is a vote concerning Iraq. I think Sen. Clinton displayed stunningly bad judgment when she trusted the Bush Administration to be honest and when she went along with us defying the UN by invading Iraq, when our government tut-tuts any other country that defies the UN (except for Israel, of course). In any event, many Democrats, as stupid as it was, actually believed that this action was crucial to preserve our safety. I must wonder if Sen. Obama, who only took this stand when his vote was inconsequential, would have voted against the resolution to give Bush a blank check. He has voted over and over to fund this war, as has Sen. Clinton. If he felt the situation in Iraq is so catastrophic, then he should have not voted to continue the run away spending. I would have respected him a lot and even considered voting for him.

I think Sen. Clinton is wrong for not admitting that voting to give Bush was a big mistake and that she should have been more of an active participant in drafting the legislation and ensuring there were safeguards against this presidents unwieldy grasp of foreign policy. I think Sen. Clinton realizes she did not do the right thing but she has taken a George Bushesuqe stubborn hardline.

I think that Joe Lieberman is less pro-choice than we think he is. He allowed the Bush nominees to coast through without any dispute.

I also dislike Lieberman's position on Israel, but then I hate almost everyone's position on Israel because I am not a Zionist, and virtually every Democrat is. Sen. Clinton has never called anyone a traitor for not supporting the invasion in Iraq. Sen. Lieberman is totally out of control and it is unfair to compare the two. He is in love with Bush and Cheney.

As much as I like Sen. Clinton, I do not think she is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. On the other hand, I do not think Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a traffic court judge, so why shouldn't we Democrats have a justice who would start out as an unskilled jurist? Sen. Clinton, for all the flaws many of you see in her, is much more intelligent than Clarence Thomas. Nonetheless, she does not have a sufficient grasp of the appellate system to spar in oral argument of procedural issues off the top of her head, nor does she have any experience as a judge when it comes to dealing with litigants. I know everyone judge has to start somewhere, but the Supreme Court is not that place. Sen. Clinton would have no shortage of the best of the best that the legal world has to offer clamoring to be her clerks, but as Clarence Thomas proves, that is not enough. The only bright spot I see in her having a spot on the court is that she would be unfettered by political concerns so she would be able to operate in a venue where she would not be held to political account. I think Sen. Clinton is quite liberal, but she does not always vote that way. Without having to consider politics, she would be be a reliable liberal voice who would openly support gay marriage and would fight against any effort to curtail civil liberties.

Thank you to those who acknowledge that Tweety aka Chris Matthews is an all around idiot. I am the last one to say that people will not vote for Sen. Clinton is a sexist because I think that is unfair and untrue. But Matthews' man crushes on McCain (I wonder how he will deal with his crushes on McCain and Obama), Thompson, Huckabee, and Obama made him act like he was a sexist. He pinched Sen. Clinton on the cheek, he called her a stripper, he refuses to address her as Sen. Clinton but by her first name, and other things. Now he is sexist.