Why does it take the Iowa caucuses and the resignation of Karl Rove for you to draw some effective opposition against America's worst president?

Doing her work as the Senator from New York, a great deal of it under the radar...there is a reason why she is so popular in upstate Republican areas as well as traditionally Democratic areas...despite the CW of her as polarizing, she has shown skill at bridging idealogical gaps and getting actual work done...

The problem with Hillary in my opinion is that she waits until it is popular to take a stand. Many of us would like to see some courage early on when its not "cool" to speak out.

which is why I'm perplexed at the support John Edwards gets from the anti-war crowd. He's for the war, and co-sponsors the IWR, when Bush is popular. Then he's against it when public support for it plummets. It creates the perception among politicians that the netroots are easily manipulative.

Edwards going negative against Obama on Iraq issues just boggles my mind.

The anti-war vote should be a two-man fight between Obama and Kucinich.

And in terms of Hillary, she shows up at events she knows she'll get booed at. How many politicians do that?

I gasped when I heard it on the radio. Why do we think that breaking international law is the mark of toughness? I don't need another president to prove that he is not a chicken by starting a war.

Kucinich  has been right almost everything, but his role is more of that of a prophet than a politician. He has the courage of saying what is right when it is unpopular. He is morally right but politically wrong.

If the media dislike Edwards, they only have contempt for Kucinich.

Who said he's starting a war?  Obama never said anything about starting a war.  He said he would "act" if he had actionable intel on bin Laden's location -- which probably means a military strike on bin Laden's hideout.  I don't think it's a violation of international law to do a surgical strike against the very man who attacked us.  Clinton did a strike against Afghanistan and the Sudan.

as long as they have actionable intelligence that their enemies are in our country? I can hear the angry cries about the violations of our sovereignty. I can even hear people saying that we should fight against those who dared to invade our soil.

Basic golden rule here: if you don't want people to do it to you, you don't do it to them. I am sure that conducting military operations without the consent of the country is violation of international law. It runs right through the heart of concept of sovereignty.

Did he say that he will wage war to prove that he a real man? No, not literally. But making a statement that he is willing to act without consent from another nation on their land is pretty close to saying that if needed, we will invade Pakistan. Iraq should teach us that if one invades a country, for whatever reason, that nation's people will resent it and probably fight back.

Obama was my second favorite candidate until he decided to adopt a Wilsonian foreign policy. There may be some Americans who want a president who promises to violate international law and wage wars to prove how tough he is.  I am not one of them.

But everyone should make their own mind about this. Here is Obama telling the world how  tough he is when it comes to his willingness to violate the sovereignty of other nations:

we should go get him.  He was responsible for killing 3,000 American on 9/11.  Get him!

Driving around Virginia Beach with my new Hillary bumper sticker!

With a pro-Reid and Pelosi ad running in several markets.  But I welcome Senator Clinton's contribution; I'm a more the merrier kind of guy.

I look forward to Obama, Edwards and all the rest getting in on the fun.

instead of the other Democratic candidates for President, she'll have an easier time in the general election because she won't have to change her rhetoric. It's also good because the only danger the eventual nominee faces is the fact that the GOP nominee will try to distance themsleves from the President. If the focus is on Bush next year, they are sooooo screwed.

Identify every Repbulican as a Bush Repbulican.

I like the ad a lot. It was uplifting and subtle. Yes, I know that she directly said that Bush didn't care about soldiers in Iraq, but the visuals--common Iowans?--made the message subdued. Bush made it even a lot better by responding to it. :)

Had dinner tonight here in Richmond with five confessed Democrats and one independent, all of which supported Jim Webb last Fall and after the last two weeks all determined not to support Hillary. Being the most moderate of the bunch I was totally amazed. So after her performances at Logo and her attendance at Kos and now making the accusation that our military families are "invisible" to the President a nerve has been struck and not the right one. I assured them not to worry she would be coming back to the center for the general election and it was politely pointed out that that was her biggest problem; she is a professional politician and will do and say anything that is politically expediant. I would like to think that it was my insights that have moved them back to the center, but truth be told Hillary doesn't need my help she is doing it just fine on her own. Two of us like Biden the others Obama and one Edwards. If Hillary heads the ticket and Fred Thompson enters the race you can safely count 4 votes for him and 2 for Bloomberg if he enters. Just goes to show how interesting this election is gonna be. Can't wait.

Let me see if I've got this straight.  You said you had dinner with 5 Democrats and one independent.  Four of these folks will probably support Fred Thompson and two will support a possible Bloomberg candidacy. 

Can you please tell me where the five Democrats went after dinner? 

A Republican posing (but not credibly) as a Democrat.

That's apparent as the three heads on his shoulders! :)

Lowell I have been posting on RK for over a year now and you know it. If we cannot be objective in our citicism of ourselves they want good are we. You know from my posts I have endorsed and supported Democrats and know I worked tirelessly for the Webb campaign in against enormous odds in a pro-Republican district ie the 7th Congressional. The dinner took place and the views were expressed. Have I voted for Republicans yes, just like Jim Webb has. But lets check the record my friends. I do not need to pose as anyhting. Lowell review my comments I have also identified myself as a moderate, something that at times leaves me on the far right on the Democrat platform. It is expression like the ones here in this thread to cause those very Democrats at the dinner and mjyself to do exactly what liberals and some progressives want and that is to shut up and get in line. And thats exactly the point I attempted to make. You obviously do not want the support of moderates or at least those of us who express concern over the direction of the Party. Lowell you know I have expressed support for Obama. Again Pro-Hillaryites going after anyone or anything not getting in line. If you nthink Democrats do not vote for Republicans at times and vice versa the dinner comment was lost on you. What people were expressing including myself is if Hillary is the nominee she would not get support. Did I say Obama, no, did I say Edwards, no Did I say Biden no. If we manged to get an Obama/Biden I think it s a no brainer the dinner group would vote Democrat, but if Hillary wins the nomination they will not. Wrong time Wrong Girl was the view. I happen to agree. Does that make me less a Democrat than you? Can I ask for the contributions back that you endorse and the volunteer hours back working for Democratic candidates like Webb. After all I am a "troll" right? You know what for get it, you obvious do not want mine or those at the dinner support anymore, one is working to unseat Davis but I guess those efforts are meaningless. I let the mdoerate group know there is no place at RK or the Democratic debate for us any longer since we are "trolls". Its no wonder they expressed a liking of Thompson and Bloomberg. Go figure.

You're right, I'm wrong.

Now I am sure we have had many a debate my fiend and you know that that is simply not the case. Please read below and the comment for Lowell. I guess Bobby does not need our support with our friends your way against Welch, one at the dinner is from the 21st and has parents in that district as well. I will let them know that Virginia Beach doesn't need her support since since is does not support Hillary. Whose the State Senator in that area up running, forget it I am sure she along with myself will consider staying home on election day since the Party does not want us or accuses us of being Republicans. If we don't think like you we are not one of you? Rubbish my friend. Your no bluer than us and your vote carries no more weight than ours, of course only if we cast it!!!

I read your story about the dinner party and instantly found it a bit unbelievable. You describe four liberal friends who in the end would support Fred Thompson if Hillary is our nominee?  My initial reaction was the same as Spotter's and was one born of not knowing anything about you (as in having noticed your previous RK comments).  My immediate reaction was "Is this guy for real?" 

You have to know that we at VB Dems are plagued with trolls. I think my reaction to your story comes as a result of having that monkey on our backs, so to speak. I'm a Hillary supporter (at least for now).  I understand the theory that Hillary is so polarizing that she has our nominee costs us Dems the presidency.  So far I'm not buying that argument, but you have every right to and I encourage your continued argument that it does.  Let's get it fleshed out.  My Hillary bumper sticker can be removed afterall. 

Eileen I understand your point. I have enjoyed your blog as well. What baffles me however and maybe you have seen this as well is how voters, like my dinner group, will not hesitate to support a Democrat regardless of whether they are more liberal or not in State offices, but will not in national elections. I think we have seen that in Virginia for a long time as we are seeing Democrats making some headway in state and county elections and yet will we as a State remain "red" in the electoral landscape. I never have really understood it but its interesting. I have to admit it was not the unwillingness to support Hillary that shocked me, but that they were considering Thompson as some sort of median or safety valve over the others. I would have thought they would have like Rudy more but not a single person spoke up for him. Wierd because he gets portrayed by Republicans as being too "liberal" on things.

I'm sorry for the late response.  I've been thinking a lot about this discussion.

My husband's family has been going through the same struggle on the Republican side since Bush (I and II).  They've been Republicans since Lincoln (well, no, they're not that old, their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents have been Republicans).  For the last decade or more, they've been saying things like "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me."  One by one they've all become Democrats, or, if they can't quite make that jump, then they at least vote for Democratic candidates.

On the other side, Zell Miller was a Democrat, but that did not stop him from challenging someone to a "duel" for questioning "our Commander in Chief."

To me, this points out the limits of party labels.  The parties are useful to candidates because they provide organization, volunteers, experience, and funding.  The parties are useful to voters because they provide a basic framework to align with large numbers of other voters of roughly similar views.  The Democratic party functions as one big, sometimes squabbling family, but yes, it has its limits.

For many people, Hillary Clinton points out the faultline at the edge of those limits.  Many of the reservations about her center around her husband, in my view a truly excellent President, but a seriously flawed human being.  In particular, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of Hillary as the "women's candidate."  Personally, I have always encouraged my kids to pay attention to the news and to be involved in public affairs.  I do not appreciate having to explain oral sex, sans some key details, to my then-six year old, all because Bill Clinton could not behave.  No, that wasn't Hillary's fault, technically.  But this woman, a top Yale law school graduate and accomplished attorney, did not have the self-respect to leave her husband in spite of the most publicized series of dalliances in the last century.  Her business, not mine, but please spare me the "sistah act."  She also has a lot to answer for in her own actions on Iraq.

Hillary has run an excellent campaign, and has gone a long way to assuaging those doubts.  She is head and shoulders above any Republican candidate, as are any of the other top Democratic candidates.  But Hillary alone is testing all of us as to what the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" mean, and how important party loyalty is versus personal character.

JScott, you win the Bad Fiction Writing Award at RK this week.  I particularly loved the part about how those "Democrats" were supposedly upset at Hillary for calling out Bush about not giving a crap for U.S. military families.  With Democrats like the people you had dinner with, who needs Republicans?

P.S.  I REALLY love the line about how you were the most "moderate" out of "five confessed Democrats and one independent."  I'd love to hear exactly what makes you "moderate" and those people - four of whom say they would support Fred Thompson (!!!) not moderate.  Hahahaha.

Well when someone self-professes they are liberal you kinda take notice. Liberalism has been portrayed as such a bad word for so long its not often people stand up and profess it out loud. So lets get to it...what makes me more moderate than than most of my dinner group...most supported/campaigned for Howard Dean, then John Kerry.One campaigned for Al Gore beginning in 1988 after his gathering at the Jefferson Hotel in Richmond up until 2000.One voted for Cater then Mondale and two voted dor Dukakis( the elders of the group) All voted for Wilder, Baililes, Kaine for Governor in Virginia, all voted for Jim Webb but everyone including myself have voted for John Warner(R) in the past. They and myself consider me the more moderate because of my position on social issues where I am more conservative as well as gun control. I also have never been a big supporter of the welfare state which puts me at odds at times with platform. I find it intriguing that we are concentrating here on what divides us and not creates unity within the party but I again I guess theres no place in the Party for a social conservative, I did not say right wing either, Democrats. What has happen to the Virginia Democrats my parents once were proud to call home? Lowell I fail to see why it is we cannot simply express our concern over Hillary and use it to benefit the discussion. Instead its dismissed as "trolling". I guess all those votes amassed over the years for Democrat delegates, senators, supervisors, congressman, Governors, and Presidential candidates has been misplaced?

I'm a big believer in a "big tent" Democratic Party.

Lowell I have always respected your views and I know things can get passionate real quick, but the "tent" does need to get big if things are gonna get accomplished. It concerns me that folks that are in the middle be welcome. I read a survey somewhere and I will try and track it down that 18% of children are raised by parents with differing political allegiances. I am a product of such parents and my children will be as well, though I am making some progress on that front. How do we win those young adults over? Inclusion. I have Republican friends that feel the same about the right wing of that Party and I fear that in the next 10 to 20 years will may just see a third party if people do not feel their views matter.

Personally, I consider myself a Jim Webb Democrat and also a "Teddy Roosevelt Progressive" - not sure if that puts me in the "middle" or what.  Anyway, I welcome people into the Democratic big tent who share our core values.  But let's face it, in a country of 300 million people but only two major parties, these tents are going to have to be pretty broad, almost by definition. 

You state: "I guess theres no place in the Party for a social conservative" combines with "What has happen to the Virginia Democrats my parents once were proud to call home?"

Are you referring to the old Democratic Party that enjoyed one party rule in the South pre-1964?  If you are, why would we want to include the intolerants who fled the Democratic Party when Lyndon Baines Johnson (arguably the greatest Democratic president since FDR, save the whole Vietnam thing) passed the landmark Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act?  Are you referring to a social conservative in the mold of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?  If so, they already have a party; it's called the Republican Party.

According to Wikipedia, the core principles of social conservatism include:

*Limit the definition of family - "Social Conservatism opposes divorce except for infidelity, sex outside of marriage, commercialization of sex, sequential monogamy, domestic partnerships, and same-sex marriage."

*Sanctity of human life - Social Conservatism is often believed to generally reject abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.

Also, "Social Conservatism is almost universal among the Christian Right."

In sum, if you're against stem cell research, a woman's right tho choose, domestic partnerships, and divorce except in cases of infidelity, you're a social conservative.  Could you still be a Democrat?  Possibly, but not likely, given that most people who believe these things are Republicans.

JScott, you've missed an essential point in all of this. 

When you said that some of your dinner guests who claimed to be 'Democrats' are going to vote for Republicans, then those of us who really and truly ARE Democrats laugh at the absurdity of anyone who would claim to be a real Democrat and yet who would vote for a Republican.  That's an oxymoron. 

A real Democrat always votes for the Democratic candidate.  Period.  Even if they have to hold their nose to do it.

You should have labeled your friends 'Democratic-leaning'.  Or even 'moderates', or 'moderately liberal', or some other identifying label.  But to call them "Democrats" just wasn't accurate, because a real Democrat - whether he/she's liberal, moderate, or conservative - always votes the party ticket. 

And that's the point that you didn't get, and that's what jumped out at me when I read it. 

 

You may be right k8. My only issue is we cannot have it both ways. In states where you have to choice party affliation and they choose Democrat do we ask them to clarify if they are "real" democrats or unreal ones. No they do not. We use those registrations across the country to build alot of political data and formulate strategies. If someone registers as a Dem do we take it for granted that they will vote Dem everytime is what I guess you are implying, but that is simply not the reality. I can only imagine how the Party can truly be about inclusion when we use labels like "real Democrat". I would be thankful for getting every vote we could this election in the General Assembly races whether they are "real" Demcorats or not.

Hence, there are "RINOs" and "DINOs".  Also, look at the circular firing squad the Republicans are going through right now over the Republican "amnesty for dangerous out-of-state driver" tax...er, fee. :)  The hard-core anti-tax conservatives are up in arms, threatening not to vote for any Republican who supported the fees.  Since that's pretty much all of 'em, it's not good news for the Republicans.  The thing is, with only two major parties in this country, the ideological range in each one is going to be very large.  Some people are going to always feel more comfortable voting for a Republican or a Democrat, while others will be more independent and vote "for the person."  But overall, I don't see how you can call yourself a real Republican or a real Democrat if you consistently vote for the other party's candidates.