I hope Obama speaks out like this more often. He said it exactly right and was the only one who could say it.

I hope Obama continues to abandon some of his self-righteous talk of "the politics of hope." You can be hopeful and tough. Any frankly, that's what a president should be.

You can't keep just talking about hope without doing anything to implement hopeful actions. From James 2:24-26, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only...faith without works is dead."

*There are some good quotes in that there book.

I couldn't resist. I had to watch the video. I think it made my eyes and ears bleed.

Hannah Storm: Mr. Kucinich, how do you respond to allegations that your wife is a sleazy, sex-freak, foreign, trophy-wife unworthy of being First Lady of these-here-United-States?

This from a woman with a porn-star name.

Elizabeth Kucinich is hot. She also happens to be a humanitarian, does a lot of social work in war-torn countries and has a master's degree in international conflict analysis. Which I suppose is why she retained the grace to not hunt Hannah Storm down, rip off her arms and use them to beat her to death.

Oh, and Storm, I know most politicians don't give straight answers. You have to badger them continuously and ask the same question three different ways. Dennis Kucinich is not most politicians and he already answered your question. Which you might have noticed if you had actually listened to him.

I don't see what good running an ad like this does for Romney now. All of the Republicans are already running against Hillary Clinton. How does that buy any of them extra votes in the primaries? If both Romney and Clinton win their parties' nominations, that's another matter.

Or is Romney so afraid of squaring off against Clinton in the general election that he's trying to prevent her from even reaching it? Poor, Romney. He's too scared to even run against his fellow Republicans is the primaries. However will he withstand the Hillary Juggernaut in the general election?

I think that Team Clinton was either 1) testing out the "they're after me because I'm a woman" tactic during the primaries to see if it'd work during the general election, or 2) getting the "I'm a woman running for president" issue out there now, before the general election, in order to neutralize it.

Or they just screwed up.

This theory reveals more about Mary Gordon than anything else. Gordon has admittedly worshipped her deceaesd father since childhood as "the man who had loved her more than God."

She's a novelist, espousing her own opinion with no supporting data.

Do all women lust for Bill? Or just heterosexual ones? Just white women? Women from the South? What about homosexual men? Heck, what about heterosexual men? Can't they be "libidinally attached" to Bill, too?

Oh, ladies, which Clinton will you be thinking about as you pull that lever in the voting booth?

LOVE the post.

jealous.

They managed to crush civil liberties here and hog-tie the press but couldn't swing suspending the Constitution and halting elections. The student has surpassed the master.

Pea Green with envy. Or, rather, Bush Green.

It's almost as if the U.S. has no idea what it's doing when it comes to the Middle East. But that'd be silly. Why would we declare a "war on terror" there if we didn't know what we were doing?

I don't dispute the idead that Bhutto might be another U.S. puppet, but how does the crackdown "bring down the present government?" Anytime soon, that is.

Musharraff, Ahmadinejad and Putin (all to varying degrees) are being more radical now because they can. The U.S. will talk softly and carry no stick because we're bogged down in Iraq.

Doesn't it give a weasel like Bush/Cheney all the 'authorization' they need to attack Iran?

That's definitely the argument. Although a Senator could probably sneeze and that'd be all the authorization the Bushies need. Note the way they keep weaseling around the question, "Does the President think he has the right to attack or bomb Iran without going through Congress?" It's a yes or no question. Go consult with lawyers and constitutional scholars if you feel you must, but the only reason not to give an answer is to be deliberately evasive and weasely.

The disconcerting things about Kyl-Lieberman are that the text of it makes the case for Iran being a critical danger to U.S. interests and that it singles out a country's military as a terrorist organization. You could level sanctions against Iran without that kind of heated rhetoric (and, sadly, the resolution as passed was still milder than earlier versions). Hence the scariness of Kyl-Lieberman--it's saber-rattling.

Biden and Dodd both voted against Kyl-Lieberman. Clinton, I believe, is just looking toward the general election and wants to appear as a tough centrist. But if she weren't so concerned with appearing tough and actually was tough, she would have voted against this foolish and undesirable resolution.