Speaking at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the queen of pandering, Hillary Clinton, declared that "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with Iran. "We have to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat of military force," she went on to say.

Military force??? Would she really take this country to war against Iran or is this yet another example of Sen. Clinton pandering to whatever group she happens to be addressing? Either way, remarks like this just reinforce my opinion that the Democrats can (MUST!) unite behind a candidate who hasn't raised equivocating to an art form. If Hillary's so damned good at sitting down with Republicans to work things out, let Harry Reid step aside and make Sen. Clinton the Senate Majority Leader. Then give us a presidential candidate who isn't despised by the far right, someone who could be held up to the harsh glare of public scrutiny and come out relatively unscathed. In other words, the Dems need to unite behind a candidate who could not only get elected but who would also be the exact opposite of George W. Bush -- a uniter instead of a divider.

I've waited all of my life to see a woman elected president but I'd die a lot happier with Al Gore as president and Barack Obama as vice-president than I would if Hillary Clinton was picking out curtains for the Oval Office.

Nerdnam sez:

In that light, those folks here who would rather vote for Nader, work for the Republicans, or see the country nuked than support Hillary are all just the same--helpers for the other side. All they do is lighten the load for the Republicans. Thanks a lot, comrades.

I'm suprised you didn't accuse us of emboldening the enemy too while you were at it. I'm a lifelong Democrat (I voted for Hubert Humphrey in '68 and George McGovern in '72) but I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to shame me into some kind of blind loyalty to Hillary Clinton just because she's a Democrat. We've had 6 years of that same kind of lockstep thinking and loyalty on the Republican side and look where it's gotten them (and us!).

Yes, you may be right when you say "Hillary can get the nomination and she can win" but if you don't mind, unless or until she's nominated I'll continue to hope that Al Gore throws his hat into the ring. And if it turns out that Hillary Clinton does get the Democratic nomination then I'll weigh her candidacy against the Republican nominee and whatever 3rd party candidates may be on the ballot and I'll vote for whichever candidate least offends my conscience. I don't consider that helping the other side, I consider that my responsibility as a voter. In short, when push comes to shove I'd like to think I'll be a citizen first and a Democrat second.

After reading Jim's post:

Maybe Goldberg admitted he was wrong, but he's still preaching a "stay the course" strategy going forward. Like Bush, he just keeps digging, and digging, and digging.

I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Molly Ivins' rules:

The first rule of holes: When you're in one, stop digging.

Rest in peace, Molly ... you'll be missed by more people than even you could have imagined.

It's all well and good for the Senate to proceed with removing that poisonous provision from the Patriot Act and go back to the Senate having to confirm these appointments, but what about the damage that's already been done? Seven Federal prosecutors have already been removed from office and replaced by people who've undergone no bipartisan evaluation. What kind of price will this country have to pay for their actions (or inactions)? Everything that I've read about this (including a New York Times op-ed piece) ends by saying this reeks of politics and attempts to expand executive power. I agree but I say the bigger issue may be the one Mr. Conason alluded to -- COVER-UP -- particularly in the case of Carol Lam. These seven replacement prosecutors need to be booted out immediately and their predecessors reinstated. Then full speed ahead with impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales, who has proved time and time again that his sole purpose as Attorney General isn't to preserve and protect the people and the Constitution, it's to preserve and protect George W. Bush and the Republican Party!

I applaud Edwards' decision not to cave in to the pressure to fire Marcotte and McEwan (what a signal THAT would have sent) but if I were him I'd surely fire the staffer who recommended these two bloggers. Even a cursory review of their blogs, including their archives, would surely have revealed that their points of view and their rough language aren't terribly representative of Edwards'.

With all of the left-wing bloggers to choose from, how in the world could anyone on Edwards' staff have concluded that these these two would add the most to his campaign? Now, of course, the damage has been done and there's already talk that Edwards' decision to keep Marcotte and McEwan may very well cost him a large percentage of the Catholic vote and that's something he may find difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

By now it's pretty clear that ALL of the nominees recognize the important part the internet will play in their campaigns. If John Edwards doesn't get the nomination you have to wonder if this incident will be looked upon as just a sad footnote to his campaign or is it symptomatic a larger problem - that Edwards' staffers and advisers just weren't up to the enormous challenge of mounting a successful campaign for his party's nomination.