"Republican" criticism of the war is just as valid as "Democrat" criticism of the war, and that is when the politician actually means it, like Ron Paul does. I believe that Dennis Kucinich does as well, and would like to see a ticket/cabinet with both of them somehow involved (which I could see happening on a 3rd party ticket). Both have been consistent in their antiwar stance regarding Iraq, Paul has been steady in his stance since at least 1998 when he voted no against "regime change" in Iraq.

Hillary voted how on the war in Iraq? I thought so. no regrets. Please stop the nonsense about Hillary being some kind of Dove. Sure she is an antiwar liberal dove, just like AIPAC Girl Nancy "Mr. Cheney, AIPAC says to go ahead and 'address' Iran before you leave office" Pelosi. Yeah right, they will all find some way to church up their rhetoric so that their warmongering seems humanitarian.

How does that peace propaganda taste? It must be good, because you are eating it up.

The majority of Americans don't vote, because the majority of Americans already believe that it doesn't matter who wins, that they are all the same.

Anyway, thank you for your comments.

As for Ron Paul, if Republicans nominate him, you have my word that I will seriously consider voting for him over whoever the Democrat is.

As for Ron Paul, if Republicans nominate him, you have my word that I will seriously consider voting for him over whoever the Democrat is.

I imagine we will have other things to worry about if that happens, like the complete meltdown of the Establishment's control over the media that would have had to proceed it, not to mention GOP leadership. Those would probably have to occur before Paul can be "allowed" to win the nomination. Trust me, Ron Paul is the Establishment's worst nightmare largely because he wants to break the People out of debtor's prison the central banks have locked us up in and dismantle the empire and its military industrial complex. Paul is already under attack by the Establishment spinsters and smear merchants (on both sides).

If you want to hear the most vitriolic tone towards Ron Paul, look no further than the neocons themselves. If a "Republican" can make people that are part of his own party's blood boil, people like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and other neocon mouthpieces, then imo he is doing something right. You could tell that even Alan Colmes was experiencing great pleasure making Hannity announce who was leading the MSNBC post-debate text message poll when the results first came in.

Paul makes the republican debates worth watching. The rest of them are summed up as: War = good. weapons = good. terror, jihad, 9/11 = bad. Israel + Saudi Arabia = BFFs. Everything else = N/A (platitudes).

The other candidates talk about cutting taxes and can't even name a program they would make cuts to. Abortion is nothing but a wedge issue. The only life either side cares about are the lives they use to pander for votes (which doesn't always work, e.g. 50% of donations from "the troops" went to Ron Paul even though the Establishment constantly panders to them).

Ideas about limiting Government are dead in the MSM, including limiting Government that wants to curtail your civil liberties and spy on you to make you feel "secure". And why shouldn't they be? Bigger and more Government leads to bigger and more news stories to fill the 24 news cycle. The Government and the Media feed each other and grow fat, while at the same time starving the people of independent thought and brainwashing them to reject any new ideas that might diminish the coercive power of the State (and its media minions). Don't expect Hillary "Police State" Clinton to change anything about the Establishment power game, she has been playing it for years.

See when I think "Police State" I don't think Clinton. I think Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, Nixon... you know, REPUBLICANS! You know them, they are the ones that cut taxes for the wealthy, increse the deficit, reduce our civil liberties, blur the line between church and state, and every time one of them becomes President, our Government always seems to end up getting BIGGER, not SMALLER. Why is that?

I also don't see Senator Clinton as a Peace dove. I see her as a centrist. I'm not going to repeat myself. If you HONESTLY believe that Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry are all just as war-mongering as W Bush, then all I can say is you have a right to your opinion.

Do boggers really vote? If teh do not boter in teh pirmary, then their opinons mean nothing. If all bloggers can do is rant online but not vote, the their rants are meaninless in teh real world.

Those who critize Hillary for vutng for the war, need to think back to the atmopshere created by the republican incontrol at teh time of the vote. Acquring good judgement in politics starts with knowing when to admit your msitakes. that would be Hillary. I wan tus out of Iraq and I never bleived we should have gone, but anyone politican says we can just completely walk away from Iraq now knows nothing. Yes we need to start pulling out now.

I'm still waiting or ffrom relevant questions and conversationns about domestic policies.

Democrats need to be also pointing out the folly of the new republican "Fair Tax scheme".

Actually, I thought it was sort of a cute photo, and definitely humanizing. She does look as if she's genuinely gleeful. It might be a worthwhile exercise for people to attempt to drop their politics and just imagine it's a picture of some older friend or relative. Then ask if they would consider it a good candid shot.

I don't guarantee any particular results. I mean, honestly, I cannot see a photo of Bush without thinking "dimwit" or a photo of Cheney without thinking "There's a guy who gets to sleep at night by grinding his teeth and revising his enemies list." So those driven to madness by the mere mention of "Hillary" are unlikely to concur with me on this photo.