Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton seem to be nearly indistinguishable on many issues, from foreign policy to other social issues such as abortion/choice. I'd love to see a well researched chart showing their stated political views on issues and see how they compare and if there are any actual differences.

the GOP has dragged so much of our country down the road toward fascism that the democratic party nominee is simply going to have to lie about their intentions...imply that they'll take a very tough stand on Iran...when, at least, one assumes, no dem candidate, even Clinton, would not engage in pre-emptive war with Iran, or anyone else.

One assumes, anyway.

I can't blame Clinton for doing whatever she has to to beat a Giuliani or McCain or Romney. This election is too important to screw up. We--and the world--simply cannot afford another GOP president, beholden to crazy neocon hawks. We just can't afford it. If Clinton has to play some hardball to prevent that, I'm all for it.

I also hope she'd never wage unnecessary pre-emptive war, too, whatever she may have to say to get through to those pathetic swing voters who still, apparently, don't know who to vote for.

...clinton would likely never wage pre-emptive war. Giuliani can't WAIT to wage one.

That's enough difference for me.

Clinton is getting a lot of the New York money (ie Pro-Israel money coming from wealthy Jewish donors). They are giving her this money because they believe that she will in all likelihood do something to Iran. they wouldnt let her get away with just taking their money and then singing kumbaya with the Iranians. Seriously, think about this: They wanna see Iran bombed, why chose Hillary when they can chose any one of the GOP candidates who are practically over each other to impress the pro-Likud crowd in America, by constantly chanting Bomb Iran?

'Swing voters,' more often than not, simply follow popular opinion and political consensus among the political leadership of both parties. By being hawkish on Iran, Clinton is only helping build support for a preemptive strike, a strike that may very well occur before January, 2009. Say what you will about Clinton's ability to obfuscate her 'true self,' the fact of the matter is that Democrats will not be able to cement their new majorities and put forward a coherent agenda until they learn how to effectively advocate for progressive positions. When the Democratic leadership argues for radical right-wing militarism, it doesn't merely allow them to think they 'look tough,' it sends a message to the politically impressionable (i.e., 'undecideds' and 'moderates') that this is the 'correct' position. Of course, ultimately, this just puts them in a Catch-22: they either back up the 'tough talk' they've validated by acting on it (and hence, becoming radical right-wing militarists) or they lose to an actual radical right-wing militarist whose positions they've validated.

a few do but there is probably a near consensus among Jews, given how Iraq has worked out, that a US war with Iran would be bad for Israel.

I like Iran. Sure, the country is run by religious nuts, but so is the US. In many ways, Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. If we were able to forge stronger ties, that would only encourage and hasten the progressive elements we would like to promote. Saber rattling simply strengthens the hand of those Iranians who would be our enemies.

Does no one see the irony in one set of religious kooks declaring another set of religious kooks to be scary irrational vipers? It reminds me of when the Catholic church had two infallible popes who both excommunicated each other. Can't we just put the extremists on all sides on an island and let them have at it, while the rest of us get on with our lives already? Before we condemn Iran for its religious zealotry, shouldn't the US examine it's own intolerance? "No, we shouldn't, because we're on the side of the one true God." That's the answer, isn't it? That is also the real problem we have. The problem is not Iran - the problem is religion. Who are the real terrorists around here? Let's put the label where it belongs - on religious nuts of all stripes, in all countries, including our own.

They are both owned by the same moneyed interests. Why am I not surprised about either of their positions? And, what's this? A little bird told me that various neocons are snuggling up close and getting comfortable with the two top dogs as well.

It would truly a be a sad statement if they get the nominations, but if that happens, Ron Paul won't be going anywhere. He has another money ticker up and is going to raise more this month than the Huckster raised all of last quarter. He has said he doesn't "intend" to run 3rd party, but if he does, his supporters won't slow down, and against Scoop and Dump and Hillary Police State Clinton, the two hawks will obviously have a big problem. Ron Paul will pincer them as they run to the center.

I know about all of his positions. Just remember that there is more than one branch of government and Paul doesn't seem into the whole unitary executive thing.

You say: the GOP has dragged so much of our country down the road toward fascism...

Unfortunately, I think it's the other way around. I think our country has dragged the GOP (and Democrats). We have candidates promoting other alternatives. What are their poll ratings? I'm sorry to say that we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The US is one big gated community. What fraction of US citizens have ever left the country? What fraction have never even left their home town? I don't support immigration reform because I want cheap strawberries. I support immigration reform because I want to break the back of our ignorant isolationist cracker white judaeo christian majority. I would like to welcome all of the wonderful Iraqi people we have so grievously displaced with open arms. Let them in by the millions!