However, it clearly counts as a "no" vote. Legislators routinely vote "present" on bills that they might favor if they were better put together, or that don't have a bunch of wasteful pork attached.Look it up... -- Xrandadu Hutman

Does everyone get to go into the campaign booth and vote "present" if their candidate does not get the nomination, basically wimp out of their responsibilty like Obama did with his "present" votes?

If it smells like poo, it is poo. If it "clearly counts as a no vote" then why the fuk not vote NO, instead of being a little cowardly weasel about it. The "present" vote is a cheat that allows a weasel politician like Obama to say, "I did NOT vote Yes for that bill" and also say "I did NOT vote NO for that bill". Great leadership there, theres a guy ready to be president.

It is painfully and obviuously clear that this self-serving, ambitious, shallow politician has been preening himself to be palatible to as many people as possible by being luke-fukkin-warm every time he is asked to VOTE or take LEADERSHIP on anything remotely controversial.

BTW don't be sorry for using the F word, it is a very colorful and meaningful and expressive word in the English language and is blessed with many many layers of meaning. Calling somone scum is the issue, it enforces an underlying theme of the Obama campaign, that he and his folllowers are enlightened while the rest of America is... scum I guess.

In SC Obama decried the old politics of division and low expectations about the capacity of Americans for unity and change.

In MI the voters were equally split amoung blacks and whites.

90% of blacks voted for Obama.

75% of whites voted for Clinton.

After Rove/Bush polarized the country, we get Clinton/Obama polarizing Democrats.

Hoo-fukkin-rah for unity.

If the terrorists ever get their hands on a dirty bomb, that'll be much more of a transcendent issue than unemployment.--asher steinberg

I understand this fear is what McCain is pushing, in order to highhlight his perceived strength.

Perspective. Perspective.

I am more worried about the tens of thousands of irresponsible people getting their hands on too much alcohol, getting in their car and killing or maiming thousands than a terrorist bomb. My friends son's 17 year old son will now walk with a limp for the rest of his life due to a drunk driver.

I am also worried about the 1 in 4 American teen girls who have been diagnosed with STD, many of whom are now also at risk for cervical cancer.

There are many things to be worried about, if you're inclined to do so, terrorist bombs, with perspective, shold be low on the list.

As other posters have pointed out, this is basically, "Gee all we need is a new Saddham to clean things up." Saddham was secular, he did unite the country and was friendly with the U.S., for at least awhile anyways. Based on far gone the country has become, it is not surprising to hear people wishing for the "good" old days of Saddham.

Higher education, employment, growth, stability, and security(only Saddham to be fearful of, not The U.S., untold number of sects, criminals, Al Queda, foreign fighters, etc) under dictatorship is better than rampant violence, decay, disease, instability, poverty, and unemployment, under the blood-enraged hand of basically out of control anarchy.

The biggest fly in the soup to any possible solution in Iraq; the U.S. occupying force. We can support Iraq indirectly as we did with Saddham in the beginning, but an occupying force will not save or even help save Iraq.

Replacing alcohol in this :

* Sometimes, people get drunk and drive, or get drunk and abuse others. Therefore, we should outlaw all alcohol (rather than just outlaw drunk driving and assault).

with guns, we get this :

* Sometimes, people get guns which allow them to very easily kill others. Therefore, we should outlaw guns (rather than just outlaw murder and assault with a deadly weapon).

Drunk driving is already outlawed, but still in 2005 about 14,000 people died due to drunk drivers. Murder and assault is already outlawed and just over 14,000 homicides occured with about 10,000 homicides due to guns.

Drunk drivers are killing more people than murderers with firearms.

Isn't it logical that since we outlaw criminals from having guns, why not outlaw alcohol from convicted drunk-drivers?

Logic by itself is woefully lacking at times. Especially concerning cars, guns, alcohol and of course the opposite sex.

A perfect opportunity to demonstrate how completly insane and dishonest a GOP water carrier is and it's all about race baiting and "the strong and dignified response of Barack Obama." Excuse me I have to sneeze…ahh...ahhh...bullshit.

Please show me a primary where Clinton received 90% of the female vote.

The clock is ticking...

Another sneeze… ahh,...ahhh...bullshit.

Some posters feel Hedges was attacking atheism. For example flipside defended atheism by presenting a valid and depressing list of the ignorant excesses made in the name of a religion. However what I saw Hedges saying was not about atheist vs Christian vs Islam, but instead that fundamentalism in any form or within any construct is bad and probably immoral.

What makes the moral case for us as individuals up or down? Who knows, but every religious or secular group has a view on that. My guess is that it is a combination of actions AND intentions boiled together into some cosmic formula. Giving to charity to get a chance at winning a prize is different than giving to charity as a sacrifice in response to an overwhelming compassion for those in need.

Regardless of beliefs, or religious or non-religious constructs, the specifics of that cosmic formula is what escapes us all.