to believe in things like liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness without undue government influence, secure borders and staying away from wars of opportunity, making sure there is such a thing as an intact Bill of Rights and US Constitution, I will GLADLY take on the mantle of being labeled degenerate.

We have seen the degenerate my friend and it is you.

That you fell into this rhetorical trap you yourself constructed is so funny, I will be giggling thinking about it all weekend.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Wonder if Salon's got the huevos to touch this.

I know what you mean about the "sexiness." But not in a literal way; I got a Hepburn/Tracy energy from them, as two extraordinarly intelligent, witty, decent people who would be a tremendous power duo.

I think as a presidential/vice presidential team (with either in either position), some great, and truly smart, things could happen in this country.

Bipartisanship requires some "good faith" and "fairness" on both sides ... and the GOP doesn't play fair ... they play dirty....

Meeting them "half-way" and not rocking the boat in a "divisive" manner is what we're had for virtually the entire Bush presidency ...

I have not seen Barack Obama in the "vanguard" of any of the fights.

Oddly enough, Barack Obama reminds ME of Bill Clinton ... and I fear another Trojan horse ... I've never liked Hillary Clinton but, after all this time, I do know what to expect from her.

Hearts and flowers and hope just don't move me at this point. There's too much work to do.

I've never quite understood your handle. Who won't fool you again? the republicans? Bush?

and I just don't understand how you promote the very candidate who did participate, in the worst sense of bipartisanship, in a cowardly bipartisan (non-partisan pro-Republican) Congress for the past eight years, and no touts it as part of her "experience" upon which we should elect her.

If you want someone who has said no to Republicans in that 10-20 point margin where they disagree--by your own logic, you should support Obama. He did not vote for the Ky-Leiberman, he did not join in the rush to war. He has distinguished himself from the conservatives on issues far more than Clinton has (I don't understand sometimes how or why she defines herself as liberal--other than health care. She is certainly not much different--according to Ann Coulter--from conservatives on national security. A point which worries me.)

As for admiring Reagan--will you Hillary supporters please stop saying something that isn't true just because you want it to be true. He said that Reagan's ideas had "played out." Meaning they're through. Anyone who mistakes that for admiration needs to have their head check.

If you don't want to get fooled again--then be more cautious this time. Consider all the angles. Don't just go with the flow, go against the flow. The flow for the past eight years has been to get a Clinton back into office. But now that the time approaches, maybe there is a better option, and a candidate who has the ability to win in a Reaganesque landslide. Reagan was able to convince one in four Democrats to vote for him--that's the kind of thing that all of us can agree would be great in a Democratic candidate (a one in four vote of support from Republicans). And Clinton will never be that kind of Democrat in her lifetime. And it's not even because of her liberal voting record--she's not that liberal. It is only over leftover bitterness in the public over who knows what. I don't frankly care or want to worry over it.

The old idea was to elect Clinton because she deserves to be elected. In some sense I don't disagree--however, I think the new thinking is: which candidate is better for the country right now? In asking this question, Clinton, on the being too bipartisan for her own good as well as being unable to win over people who are on the other side as Obama has in every primary thus far--comes up short.

These are issues worth your consideration.

Maybe it's trite, but Obama's "hope" message has permeated all of us (well, many of us). His charisma changed the dynamic of this entire election and is infecting the country.

There is NO WAY Hillary Clinton could have done that. THAT is Barack Obama.

If we talk about a dream ticket, Obama/Clinton. Put the most charismatic one on top.

I really liked the necklace and earrings by the way. Very very pretty :)

Every time the Republicans screw up, the Democrats pay for it. This axiom is undeniable (more on that later). First, I have a special plea related to a particularly nonsensical Republican talking point.

Can we please get rid of the most dumb-assed talking point of all time? The (il)logic goes something like this. We have had two Bush family members serve as President, and it has been a disaster for the country. Therefore, we must completely reject another Clinton in the White House, because two Clintons as President too close together would also be a disaster (reason number 1). Or – reason number 2 – electing a second Clinton so soon after the last (who was pretty damn successful) would represent a monarchy or other non-democratic aspect to our country?

The first reason makes no sense, because as Hillary Clinton put it last night: "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another to clean up after the second Bush." The second reason is equally ridiculous, because the only way that Hillary Clinton gets elected is through the democratic process, not because of family ties to the Bushes. The Clintons have never been royalty, and they certainly are not treated like royalty now.

Back to my general axiom, and it is part of the reason that I see no advantage to Barack Obama’s relative newness on the national political scene. One big reason why nobody wants to impeach George W. Bush is because the impeachment of Bill Clinton was so ridiculous and an obvious waste of time for the country (Remember - the Republicans screw up, the Democrats pay for it).

Likewise, the Republicans have been ridiculously partisan in the way that they govern. Most people are aware of how bad the Republican brand of partisanship was for the country. So now we are told that the country would like no more partisanship. This is another trap (see Glenn Greenwald), because if the Democrats cannot be partisan, we are stuck with the failed policies of the Republicans.

Another example - Just a short time ago, filibusters were considered the work of Satan, because if there were no filibusters, the Republicans could force everything they wanted down our throats. Now the Republicans are in the minority, so they use filibusters with impunity and no one complains too much.

The Republicans abused earmarks beyond belief. Now, we should get rid of all earmarks, and on and on it goes.

Barack Obama talks about putting aside partisanship, and how much he admires Ronald Reagan and the Republicans because they had so many ideas. Mr. Obama will either be forced to drop the fantasy of extreme bipartisanship, or he will fail to succeed with a Democratic agenda. When it comes down to it, we need a fighter who scares the hell out of the Republicans, not someone who the Republicans pretend like they could vote for, but who they will smear in the general election and beyond. Hillary Clinton has been through that and she has shown that she has the knowledge, the passion and the fortitude to win the struggle for a better America.