You haven't had ANY dialogue with me. Calling me racist, elitist and other crap doesn't count. You can't comment on any pro-Clinton posts without spewing hatred. Rational? Toads are more rational than you...and they probably make better pets.

Last post to your foul-mouthed type of "hope."

Got hate?

Oh come now. I really think that Tom Payne aka Madame Rabidfly aka Little Lord Baltimore aka ManosXX, aka 20 or so other sign-ons are just doing "intellectual" circles around the reasoned posters engaging in substantial issues.

Is it acceptable that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's priority -- "national security" in the form of his "war on terror" -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?

Answer: It is the Obamateur who insisted all those sixties matters were tiresome and done with. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to assume the obamateur WANTED to make foreign policy the center of his campaign and to call into question his LACK OF experience therein (excluding of course living abroad when he was 10).

By saying McCain is "ready to cross the [White House] threshold and Obama is not, because McCain is ready to take up Bush's "war on terror," she is concluding that this is more important than the progressive issues I cite above.

Answer: While Obama postured against the war to raise funding before he had to worry about the fallback of it, it is he who has made it the centerpiece of his campaign. For the matter the Obamateur has based his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a silly Iraq speech he made when he had no skin in the matter which was probably more to rally up dollars from Syrian and Iranian donors in Illinois than any "judgement" call.

Question 2: If it is okay for the Democratic nominee to make Bush's "war on terror" the number one issue, then how can Clinton match up to McCain in the general when she has much less "national security" credentials?

Answer: Eight years of peace and prosperity in their administration. Successfully thwarting year 2000 terrorists on the Canadian/Washington border. Successfully prventing another 9/11 sort of attack on the USA. Negotiating successfully with North Korea. Containment policy in the mideast and in China.

Succesful peace brokering in the middle east and in Ireland.. we could go on and on but why. It's obvious.

Now - what has the Obamateur ever done in foreign policy short of visting Somalia and dressng up in Muslim garb for pictures?

And why did he enlist millions of dollars of taxpayer money to an indicted fraudelent like Resko?

All those who afraid of immigrants, minorities, gays and lesbians, poor, workers, move to the right.

Actually all immigrants, including immigrants who arrived much later than blacks have managed to become successful well-assimilated members of society and very influential in the Democratic party. Similarly hispanics are very active and savvy politically and are destined to become the future political deciders of the country: already are.

Nobody seems to have any issue in fact with "minorities"

Meanwhile in every single one of your hate-filled rants you've gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on calling people "racists", "Nazis", "blackshirts"(whatever that is.

that's where people get sick of you and you become a cartoon that everybody tunes out. It's one thing to call someone a racist when there is significant evidence to support it. But that usually encompasses a little bit more than their not supporting a half-black candidate that's entirely unqualified.

Not that any of this will dissuade you from your insistance upon crying wolf in every hate-filled message you write I'm sure.

Sorry you don't get to write the rules and then play referee too.

YOu asked why Clinton was talking about national security. Well if you haven't noticed a unified Republican party is attacking on national security. I don't think they're very interested in talking about civil rights.

But since the Obama campaign has told us the sixties civil liberties movements were tired and over,what in the F. is your point? They don't matter, remember.

Just more silliness to hit HRC with? You betcha.

Truthfully I think you better take Conasson's advice and start worrying about your own preferred nominee who seems to be standing up as well to the Republican assaults on him as the Bush twins at a keg party.

Let me try to explain this one last time:

Regardez-vous un large-mouthed bass and I don't give a dime what you think.

not hostile 2 u.

Sorry but I live in the real world. Pulling civil liberties out of the sky as your latest noodle to wack Hillary with is preposterious when your own candidate said they didn't matter and were all dried up and done with.

Obviously people must agree with him. By all exit polls people were interested in 1) the economy 2) healthcare and 3) security.

Try focusing on those and you'll do better.