John Mcain survived five years in north vietnamese prison. For that he deserves our respect. He's ridden that horse for thirty years. It's dead. He, the purported maverick, the stud on the Straight Talk express, is a Bush sycophant. Ever since South Carolina in '00, Johnny's had his nose up Georgie's preppy tush. His disagreement, primarily, is that we are not warlike enough. More troops. More war. Escalation. Kill them heathen Muslim bastards. The economy is going to crap in large part because we're pissing away billions a month in Eye-rack, and John wants more. Hillary voted for the war, and refuses to apologize for her vote. That's all I need to know. She's a decent Senator and raised a fine daughter. Good for her. She will never be President. If she levers her way, via superdelegates, in to the nomination, she will lose. Unless we get 60 votes in the Senate, and I highly doubt we'll be at more than 55 or 56, Warmonger Johnny can bomb to his heart's content. He loves war. It's his family's tradition. It's what they do. If you want President McLame, vote for Billary.

ezhik2: what you wrote is exactly what I've said privately. I can't disagree with a word it.

BUT of the remaining candidates, Mr. Obama is the least militarist. And he doesn't seem quite so in love with the war machine.

Pending a second coming of Eugene Debs (I'm trying to be funny but it actually hurts... :-( ), Mr. Obama is the best we have, and he's actually got a lot of good points. I can imagine actually convincing him of something using a moral argument.

Look at how "Salt of the earth" is applied.

It is never applied to a scientist - they are intellectual elites.

It is never applied to a lawyer - also an intellectual elite.

Reporters, editors, writers? Never the salt of the earth. Nor are union leaders.

It is never applied to a university professor, it is never applied to a qualified accountant and it is rarely applied to a qualified engineer.

Instead it is applied to unskilled labour, granting them virtues which are just as likely to show up in people with degrees.

It is an insult. Particularly when it is applied to people with proviso's like them not being politically active, and so fearful of the "Angry debate" that they won't argue over it and are too afraid to even go so far as to have bumper stickers supporting their candidate on their car.

Now I don't think these people who you term "Salt of the earth" are afraid, nor do I think they are stupid, I think they are uninterested and unlikely to vote because of that.

Number one, our military has subcontracted out about 100,000 private contractors who are not accountable in the chain of command or bound by the laws of war, and our troops in uniform are stretched beyond the physical and mental breaking point. Do I have a problem with increasing the military budget to add more troops and improve physical and mental health programs? No, I do not.

Number two, even if he is not a perfect dove, is the solution to vote for the MORE hawkish candidate (Hillary)? That can't be it, so the only possible reason the Haters (Hillary fans) are spewing this trash is because they see Barack supporters enjoying being for Barack (and WINNING nationwide) and they want to spoil our good time.

In short: La la la, I can't hear you. And I've already put the beer on ice so I can enjoy your girl's concession speech.

I have never met Hillary Rodham Clinton Tom, but I think it

would be a good idea if you did, and then you have some moral

discussions with her, and find out how truly moral she is.

She started organizing for children of migrant families when she was a teenager, and it wasn't because she's a "militarist."

When she authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq, she thought that Saddam would only truly comply with weapons inspections unless there was the threat of force. She would never in her wildest dreams have believed that the Bush administration would in effect, be as reckless and careless as they have been. A Hillary administration would never have gone to war in Iraq. I think she feels like no matter how many times she tries to explain it, people will obfuscate it, which is true.

and I appreciate the polite words... but please look at her website... at her stump speech... at her quotes...

When she authorized Bush to go to war, YOU knew and if you didn't I *certainly fucking knew* that the war was a total con. Everyone knew that the weapons inspectors had given a mostly clean bill of health. Everyone knew that Saddam was a tinpot little dictator who had nothing in his hand.

There was *no evidence* of any "weapons of mass destruction" -- everyone knew it!

If she truly, truly made a mistake -- then she should pay for it. Hundreds of thousands having paid for this terrible mistake with their lives -- that Hillary should pay with her career is quite reasonable.

She had all the information she needed. We called out to her -- we -- *I* -- wrote letters to her -- she ignored them -- she talked tough -- she's STILL talking about dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran.

Let's put it another way -- your candidate is willing to drop nuclear weapons on Iran *as a first strike*.

*** There is no way in a trillion years I could support Hillary Clinton after that. ***

Frankly, you can write till you're blue in the face, I'll read and think about what you say.

But unless Hillary is willing to say, "I won't drop an atom bomb on Iran if they don't drop an atom bomb on anyone," she will never ever have my support.

(And that's against her relentless desire to *take your tax money and mine and give it to the military industrial complex show has show time and again they they aren't even as competent as your average McDonald's worker.*)