You know what, Maureen? I don't. I really don't.

regarding tax and fiscal policy he is more willing to split the difference with the republicans than she is (although the differences are not great), and regarding Iraq he wasn't there when the original posturing was required, neither of them is going to Iran, the only real difference between them that matters in the political realm is which one is more electable. There is obviously a great deal of cultural and psychological material to go into regarding the RESPONSES people have to the two of them, but I am just getting over the flu.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" is from Shakespeare's Macbeth but you seem to be passing it off as your own. You resent the fact that I'm an educated woman? You resent the fact that I never descend to using scatalogical language as you do and that I'm not obsessed with the gaseous exhalations of the body such as you and others of your persuasion are? Nobody calls a London accent "Cockney" any more; it's called Estuary English. It really is irritating having to explain things to dolts who have the audacity to fancy themselves as debaters. Of one thing I'm sure, I've more of a resemblance to Scarlett O'Hara than you have to Rhett Butler. Nighty-night, little man.

So during the 1990s when she was First Lady and she just sat by and watched the Clinton sanctions on Iraq result in the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children (according to The Nation magazine), that was just political posturing because she's a woman, she didn't really mean it?

When she voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq, intentionally without first reading the reports that showed there may not have been WMDs, that was just political posturing because she's a woman, she didn't really mean it?

When she voted to allow Bush to invade IRAN, even though she knew by then she had been fooled by the Bush lies to invade Iraq, it was just political posturing because she's a woman, she didn't really mean it?

When Hillary refuses to define "torture" as including waterboarding, even though John McCain says that waterboarding is definitely torture, she is just political posturing because she is a woman, she doesn't really mean it?

Well, I guess that makes it all OK. Girl Power!

"'Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' is from Shakespeare's Macbeth but you seem to be passing it off as your own."

Honey, call the Clinton campaign. They could use an advisor.

I can assure you that neither the leader of Iran nor any other person of importance that president Barak meets with is going to respond to him like one of his groupies at one of his speeches. Your suggesting that they would is highly revealing. I am confident that Obama HIMSELF knows better, fairly confident.

Diplomacy involves being in a position of strength.

There had been intelligence pre-911 that had been doubted, and many such as Hillary and Edwards, not knowing for sure if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, knew that he would only really comply with weapons inspections if there was a looming threat of force, because he was a very deceptive man.

Iran and Ahmadinejad can be very deceptive too.

Unfortunately, the threat of force is often the only thing that expedites diplomacy with stubborn leaders.

Obama was not involved in national politics at the time, he did not have the responsibility of the safety of the nation to consider; 9-11 pulled reality out from under everyone in Washington. They didn't know what was for certain. That's why the majority voted "better safe than sorry."

Barack has said he doesn't know exactly how he would have voted if he was in the Senate at that time.

Hillary has said all along that she strongly disagrees with the way the Bush administration did not follow the diplomatic route, and even more strongly disagrees with the way they've conducted the war.

Goodnight ~

"Iran and Ahmedinajad can be very deceptive too."

And I'm sure they'll be much more receptive to a woman who voted to give Bush the authority to bomb them.

"Hillary has said all along that she strongly disagrees with the way the Bush administration did not follow the diplomatic route, and even more strongly disagrees with the way they've conducted the war."

Which explains why she was so willing to believe the Bush administration again and give him the authority to bomb Iran.

What about this do you not get?

I have enough respect for this forum to assume anyone, anonymous notwithstanding, would know sound and fury was Will's. Geez, what a twit. Is that Estuary English. Snob. Pardon me if I'm not impressed by quote droppings. we had a daughter who could do that before she was ten. BFD. Nitey nitolax, Drama Queen. love Whore-ratio

"The HRC camp is trying to hit Obama on false claims of plagiarism after he used some lines from a Deval Patrick speech--at the urging of Patrick himself."

You are confused about what constitutes plagiarism. It doesn't matter that Deval Patrick gave Obama permission to use his speech. Obama passed Patrick's spech off *as Obama's own words.* The *audience* thought they were hearing Obama speak. They weren't. *That* is the deception.

I'll give you a real-life example. I teach at a univerisy. I recently received a paper from a student that she clearly hadn't written (a review of an event I knew she hadn't attended). When I asked her to explain, she said she thought I wanted her to write the paper "as if" she'd been there (I clearly didn't, but that's another story), so she "interviewed classmates to get their impressions" of the event and stitched them together to make her paper. She added, "They all said it was ok" to use their words, and, of course, she didn't credit them in her work. I refused to credit the paper(obviously!), and I reported her to the Dean of Students for academic dishonesty. Her actions constituted plagiarism.

Now back to Obama.

I know every candidate has speechwriters. So no speech is 100% the candidate's own words. But. The Obama Brand emphasizes his oratory gifts, the power of *his* words to unite people for change. The Deval Patrick speech was crafted for a different man, a different occasion, and a different context. This lifting of Patrick's speech is not only intellectually dishonest, even if Patrick sanctioned it, it can call into question the credibility of Obama the Brand.

And it was a "Freshman Comp" type error. A simple "I'd like to repeat some words my friend Patrick Duval once said, becaue they ring true today ..." would have made it all right.