Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

acarr

Katie, although I disagree with your point about people from other countries posting about US politics on this thread, I agree with the rest of your post, and appreciate your response.

Anonymous

I agree with so many women here.  And, yes, Marilyn, it is great that we are free to complain and not having to worry about our heads being on the chopping block.

Amy, do you really believe the WORLD loved the USA before we went into Iraq?  France has not liked us for years and years.  And George Bush is NOT an evil person.  I don't agree with EVERYTHING he has done, but I respect the fact that he's a man who walks the walk and talks the talk.  And you have the right to your opinion/s also. 

I am more concerned, as I have said over and over and over, of the security of this nation.  My concern is not over social issues.  I believe Obama is naive.  I also don't trust Hillary.  Just my opinion.

I just want to say, THANK YOU KATIE for chiming in.

As far as WMDs in Iraq, yes they were there.  Where did they go?..who knows.  Saddam gave GWB the finger and GWB did what he said he'd do.  And, the dems and some of the repubs are not calling FOUL who voted for the war.  War is not popular.  And no, we weren't prepared as to what was going to happen after the fall of Saddam.

How many of you watched the war when it first started?  I did.  How many of you saw the fall of Saddam?  I did.  How many saw the coward in his spider hole?  I did.  HE DID NOT THINK President Bush was coming in. 

But, anyone who has been against Bush isn't going to be FOR Bush no matter what. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather

"On September 20, CBS retracted the story. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."^[11]The controversy has been referred to by some as "Memogate" and "Rathergate."^[12]

Following an investigation commissioned by CBS,^[13][14][15] CBS fired story producer Mary Mapes and asked three other producers connected with the story to resign. Many believe Rather's retirement was hastened by this incident.^[16] On Thursday, September 20, 2007, Rather was interviewed on Larry King Live commenting "Nobody has proved that they were fraudulent, much less a forgery. ... The truth of this story stands up to this day."^[17]"

^{Dan Rather is a bitter old man.  He was forced to retire.  And the last time I heard he's planning on suing.}

BethNY

I never got into this debate in the beginning cause it made my blood boil.  And, while I have definitely called Joan out by name in pretty much everything I've wrote, it's only b/c she loves to bash Hillary, but that doesn't mean I dislike Joan in any way, shape or form.

Rather, if I thought she couldn't handle it, and would be mad at me, I wouldn't say anything.

Look-- this is a political discussion.  And what makes America so great, is that we're full of diverse individuals with different beliefs and values...

and I respect what everyone is saying.  Even if I do throw a little republican humor here and there, I say it with a light heart.

At the end of the day, I hope this country can find a leader that will bridge the gap between the left and the right.  I hope we find a leader that will repair the bridges with all of the countries over seas, that have either lost faith in the US, or are a threat to us.

At the end of the day... I enjoy each and every one of you ladies.  What you have given me over the years I have been around these boards could never be taken away by a little political debate.

Anonymous

Beth, that was very sweet.   I also agree with difference of politics/even religion, cannot take away our camaraderie that we have for each other. 

Shirley

Beesie

"People from other country's ought to tone down their rhetoric on a cancer forum"   Katie, that's interesting.... I take it that you are talking about me?

I didn't realize that BCO was a U.S. only cancer forum.  My mistake.  So sorry.  Here I thought this was a discussion board for any woman with BC, wherever she may live.  Maybe I was confused by the fact that there's a forum here for Canadian women with BC.  And I seem to have noticed lots of women from many different countries around the world.  I guess we've all been mistaken.  Thank you for setting me straight.

As for joining a discussion (on this very public discussion board) about U.S. politics, Joan has already suggested that I not participate in this thread, but in response I've received many more "welcome" messages both on this thread and via private message.  Still, I'll keep in mind your wishes that I depart this thread (and BCO in general, I guess).  Truth is, if I felt that my posts weren't adding to the discussion and at times, providing valuable information or an alternative viewpoint, I wouldn't post.  But it does appear that with my education (I studied American politics) and research background, I have as much knowledge about American politics as many of the posters here, and in a number of cases I have been able to answer questions about the American political process and fill in gaps about the candidates positions.  Oh yeah, and then there's that 'free speech' thing.

As for my political position, obviously, it's not relevant, although I suspect in my posts I've been coming across as a died-in-the-wool Democrat.  Given your comments, I'd like to clarify.  In Canada I'm definitely more inclined to the Conservatives than the Liberals.  (The Conservatives are on the right though closer to the center than the current Republicans; the Liberals are on the left, relatively similar to the Dems.)  It's just that having observed the last 8 years of U.S. politics (including having lived in the U.S. for a portion of that time), like most of the rest of the world, I hope for a change.  I do believe however that Clinton's more moderate and reasoned approach is better than Obama's change for the sake of change approach.

As for America being the greatest nation in the world, I would hope that every American thinks that.  You should.  I live in Canada.  Canada has universal health care, allows gay marriage, doesn't have a sub-prime mortgage crisis and has a strong economy (except for the overflow impact of the U.S. almost-recession), and didn't join the war in Iraq (but is in the process of extending our lengthy mission in Afghanistan).  I think Canada is the greatest nation in the world.  But I would never expect someone from another country to agree, and as much as I love my country, I recognize that there are many things that are being done better by other countries. 

Katie, yours was a subtle attack, but with much that you wrote, I did feel very personally attacked.  So I've responded.  Now I'd suggest that we return this political thread to the topic of politics.  If you are not interested in my viewpoint, please just don't read or 'block' my posts.

JoanofArdmore

Ladies! I am a very big girl, and an old Demmy.But I'm not blind or stupid!I KNOW there are Republicans i  the world!In fact, there are mostly Republicans!

I can take it!

I would never want people to be quiet because they are Republicans!

And Marilyn, WHAT a truism!!Thank you!!!!!Right, how lucky we are to be able to be discussing this, instead of being busy having bc exclusively.

I feel blessed that I can be here.Although I would have been interested in his election when I was in deeper treatment, I would not have had the will or energy to join he discussion, I think.

So RIGHT, Marilyn!!

And Beth, yes, Honey, I DO know Obama isnt the only Dem candidate, and that miss hillary has supporters!And buh-lieve me, I'm fine with it and you.XXX!(Love you, hate her)

I left" because certain people were turning the discussion to a place to throw statistics and untrue "facts".The former is boooring to me, the latter I can't get involved with.I have lots of other stuff to do!

Speaking of statistics and factuals, here is a good part of  Tim Noah's

column finally answerng my musical question:"35 years of experience doing WHAT???"

...........................................................................................

"Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure-what spouse isn't?-but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq-since shown to be undeniable-required "the willing suspension of disbelief."(What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story, "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25^th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own."

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

JoanofArdmore

PS--Beth and Amy.. .OK I wont vote for McCaine if the unimaginable happens.I will write in Gore.Hey--I will write in Obama!

Got Hope?

iodine

I find it hard to believe that sitting down with the pres of Iran would benefit anyone, and Amy, he's the guy who, at the university debates here in the US stated emphatically that there were NO gays in his country.  Yeah, right.

He also stated with certainty that the holocast was a fairy tale, made up by Jews for sympathy.  He has other beliefs that are way further off the wall than any conservative here in the states.

I can't see anyone sitting down with him and making any progress in changing his mind about ANYTHING.  He's just too ignorant and bigoted.

NoH8

Shirley-- it's not as black and white as love and hate. Many more countries in the world RESPECTED the USA more before we invaded iraq against UN consent, acting like rulers rather than citizens of the world. When you talk about "france" not liking us you have to examine why and whether our illegal invasion of iraq was more of the same reasons for their dislike. It frightens me that you actually believe that there were WMDs after Sadaam destroyed them-- too much Fixed/Fox "news" and not enough real news. Do you realize that ANYONE can go in and edit wiki-- fact or not fact? You have to look at the SOURCES to determine whether or not there is a bias. BTW, Dan rather is NOT retired, he's still reporting news-- just not on the republican biased CBS news. I'm appalled that you would call him a bitter old man. None of us is getting any younger.

Beesie, I agree with you about Katie's passive-aggressive attack. To say that anyone doesn't have a right to chime in on the conversation, whether we disagree isn't right. You and I disagree on Hillary vs. Obama. Neither of us is trying to change the other's mind. Is it ok that I think Canada, not the US is the best or one of the best countries (except for the cold climate)? I'm torn between Canada and Holland. Canada wins on proximity, Holland on even more freedom.

Dotti- I don't like or respect the iranian president. I know very well who he is. If you listen closely to his interviews on 60 minutes and other channels, he sounds a lot like GWB in his stubborn insistance. The guy is frightening-- but until we at least try face to face diplomacy- we won't know that it doesn't work. I think back to Obama's statement about hope and what if King had say, "I have a dream, but never mind, it won't work." I believe with diplomacy we have to think outside the box sometimes until we are proven wrong. Just what harm would it be to at least say, I tried to talk to the Iranian pres and that was fruitless so now we're going to plan B.

Joan-- you've put my mind at eased writing in Obama or Gore if the worst happens and Hillary gets the nomination.  I'm on the fence, hoping it won't come to that but less resistant to voting against McCain with a vote for her. I'd have to see who her running mate is and how far to the right she panders in the general election.

Beth - I asked you this before but you may have missed it. Do you really think Hillary has a chance in a general election and if so can you expand on that. All the polls I've seen she at best ties McCain where Obama leads him by as much as 10 pts.

Blundin2005

 Mario Cuomo talks economics

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid203719194/bclid86272812/bctid1406588500 

...and wants change (but did not pick a candidate yet)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid203719194/bclid86272812/bctid1406588500 

NoH8

Did anyone watch part of the (scary) conservative convention where  McCain pledged to vote for supreme court justices like Alito and Roberts? This was in the historically very conservative washington journal. I don't know who thinks our right to choose is not necessarily in danger--- just consider the possibility of the possible 2 appointees this next president will make.

Dobson's Choice
February 9, 2008; Page A8

Mike Huckabee this week picked up the endorsement of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who reiterated his statement Tuesday that he could not vote for presumptive Republican Presidential nominee John McCain even in November against a Democrat. Speaking of Senator McCain, the Christian broadcaster said "His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me."

We haven't endorsed any candidate, and it's up to Mr. McCain to convince Mr. Dobson that he's worthy of his vote. But for the network of socially conservative activists who are now such a large part of the Republican Party, this is also an instructive moment. They have to decide if they care more about achieving their policy goals than they do about being kingmakers within the GOP.

Last year some of these same people said they could never vote for Rudy Giuliani, who was then leading in the GOP polls despite favoring abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples. We thought that was short-sighted, given Mr. Giuliani's pledge to appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices. But at least in the case of Mayor Giuliani, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Mr. Dobson could point to a record on abortion at odds with their views.

That's not the case with Mr. McCain, who has a long pro-life record and has voted for every conservative Justice now on the Supreme Court. The Arizona Senator added this week that if elected he would nominate Justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Social conservatives hate the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance restrictions, though probably not as much as we do. They also dislike Mr. McCain's support for publicly funded stem-cell research. But on the central question of abortion rights that Mr. Dobson and friends care so deeply about, Mr. McCain is on their side.

Moreover, any major change in abortion law can only be accomplished through the Supreme Court. For that matter, every cultural controversy these days seems to end up at the High Court, whether or not legislatures have spoken on the question. The Presidential winner in November will probably appoint no fewer than two Supreme Court Justices. The likeliest vacancies, from an actuarial perspective, will come from the liberal wing of the Court.

So a President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has the potential to set back the prolife agenda by 30 years. It could well be a generation before a President would have another opportunity to shift the balance on the Court to the right.

Mr. McCain's harshest critics argue that his judicial picks could easily be as bad as anyone tapped by Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. This is caricature, but even if it had merit, the likes of Mr. Dobson would be trading the risk that Mr. McCain picks moderates for the court for the certainty that his opponent would appoint liberals.

It's always possible Mr. McCain would make a bad Supreme Court nomination, just as Ronald Reagan picked Anthony Kennedy, who later affirmed Roe v. Wade. As we recall it, social conservatives at the time promoted Mr. Kennedy because he was Catholic and let it be known that he personally opposed abortion, while they frowned on Judge Laurence Silberman because he supported abortion rights as a personal matter even as he opposed Roe as a matter of law. Justice Kennedy has been a catastrophe for cultural conservatives, while Judge Silberman recently wrote the landmark appellate decision favoring gun rights now being heard by the Supremes.

The conservative coalition has learned a lot about picking judges since 1987, and especially since the nomination of David Souter by another Republican President. As the Harriet Myers interlude proved, another mystery pick by Mr. McCain or any other GOP President is far less likely than it used to be.

Mr. Dobson and other social conservatives may decide they can't vote for Mr. McCain for any number of reasons. What they can't do with any credibility is claim that helping to elect a liberal President will further the causes that these conservatives claim to believe most deeply in.

Blundin2005

Susie...on the question of energy...most of the G7 shifted their focus from oil to nuclear energy over this past summer.  Russia is rich with oil but needs a pipeline thru Iran to transport it....thus they are "friends". 

Things are popping in Russian politics ... another arms race as Putin put it because NATO wants to put missles ...um, I believe Poland?...for a very interesting report on the rapid political changes on that continent I recommend BBC World report "Inside Russia" ... 

Just watched Jon Stewart's report on Mitt Romney dropping out...I could not believe my ears...Mitt is very scarey guy who might run again some day for President.

On to fashion ..... Dow Jones Market news reports that fashion is designing to the impending US recession that is expected to reach global proportions...by young American designers, the weak dollar has some benefits ...I thought this might lighten things up a bit.  http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid203719194/bclid86272812/bctid1409430676

Beesie

Amy, thank you for your support!  And that's an interesting article about McCain and the issue of the selection of Supreme Court Justices.  There's a lot at stake there, and for both the Democrats and the Republicans, the consideration that the other party may be able to set the long-term direction of the Supreme Court should be enough for both parties to come together behind whoever their candidate is.

One of the things that's interesting to me in these discussions is how some people see the last 8 years and the current campaign and candidates as black or white, right or wrong.  To me, and clearly to many of the others here, it's all a blur of various shades of grey. 

As an outsider, and having travelling internationally extensively over the past 8 years, I don't think there's any question that the status of and respect for the U.S. within the rest of the world has fallen considerably during the Bush years. I think that's so unfortunate and I hope that the next President can reverse this.  But I don't think it's so much what GWB did that caused this rather than how he did it.  I was living in the U.S. on 9/11 and at the time the war was started.  I remember being surprised that Canada had not joined and I investigated why.  My conclusion was that it was simply that George Bush jumped the gun. He acted too fast. He didn't wait for a consolidation of international opinion; he went ahead on his own, he set the timetable.  He didn't lead, he forced.  And in his manner and speeches, he came across to much of the rest of the world as being arrogant and a bully (sorry, I don't mean to offend).  As it turns out, the results of the war haven't been good, so unfortunately for the U.S., the only one to blame is GWB.  There were no WMDs (or none that have been found).  As horrible as Saddam Hussein was to his own people, in his role as a dictator he never would have allowed a group like Al Qaeda to come in and steal the hearts and minds of his people.  That would have been a threat to him.  But without him there, Al Qaeda have moved in. The Middle East is in more turmoil than ever; the world is less safe.  There are less resources available to focus on the more serious problem of Iran.  Overall, not a good situation.

So what would have happened if George Bush hadn't jumped the gun?  Perhaps it would have been discovered that were there no WMDs and the war would never have happened.  I don't think so.  I think that discovery still was years off.  If GWB had been a little more patient, I suspect that within a pretty short period of time the rest of the western world would have agreed to military action and the war would have started with much broader support.  While the results might not have been any different (or maybe they would have been), with every western country having a stake in the decision, how the world views GWB and the U.S. today would be a whole lot different.

Looking ahead, when I consider the Presidential candidates, there are things that I like about each one, and things that I don't like. 

- Huckabee is probably the most likable candidate - he's seems like a genuinely nice, funny guy - but his desire to amend the constitution to be more in line with the Bible is frightening to me.  What about all the Americans who don't take their faith from the Bible?  And his tax plan is unrealistic.

- McCain seems honest to me, and there are aspects of his position that I support, including much of what he says about what must be done in Iraq.  But I fear that he will be too unbending in his belief that the U.S. should stay in Iraq for the long haul.  Five years might be necessary, but a permanent presence might not be.  And then there's the Supreme Court Justice issue.

- I admire Obama for his vision and I think that he's the most compelling leader.  I have no doubt that he'll be able to bring the country together.  But as with McCain, I fear that he will be too unbending in his position on Iraq.  Committing to a short-term timetable for withdrawal, without consulting the military leaders, seems hasty and naive. And while I agree that attempting diplomacy with Iran may be a reasonable approach to start with ("Plan A"), I think that the U.S. President should be prepared to invoke "Plan B" (military action) as soon as it's deemed necessary (frankly, I don't think diplomacy with Ahmadinejad stands a chance).  I worry that Obama will stick with "Plan A" for too long, possibly to the point of endangering the U.S. and Israel.  

- As for Hillary, she is polarizing, and I worry about her ability to effectively lead and bring together all the feuding constituencies.  But I tend to agree with her position on most of the issues, particularly health care and Iraq. Her Iraq position (troop withdrawal based on a plan developed by the military leaders, supported by diplomacy) seems the most flexible - she's been adamant that she won't commit to anything until she's in office and has the chance to get the facts and speak to the experts.  So I have more faith that she'll do what's right, rather than what was committed to while campaigning.

Much of the discussion in this thread has been one person or another praising a favored candidate or bashing an unfavored one.  I think what's really interesting are the "greys", the pros and cons that everyone sees for each of the candidates, whether it's the one you like or the one you don't like. 

iodine

I don't think I'm as concerned about choice and the presidency or supreme court or congress, as I used to be.  I believe the states are where I am concerned about a woman loosing her choice about having an abortion.

I see the states taking over the role of the supreme court in beating down Roe v Wade's mandate that a woman is in control of her body.

Mississippi has ONE abortion clinic.  I see states opposed to choice making laws where it will be harder and harder to obtain legal,safe care.

Those who can afford it will continue to be able to choose, by going to another state, or Mexico or Europe.  Those who cannot will go back to the 50's - 60's and coat hangers or knitting needles.  And, sadly, only after we have killed off many young women will this be readdressed.

Anonymous

Amy, I'm so sorry I have offended you.  Please forgive me.

Yes, I know wikii isn't the best source.  I was a bit tired so perhaps I should find you another source.

I don't think you need to tell me that I watch too much of Fox News. I do not tell you what to watch, nor what to read. Hey, they don't know what happened to the WMDs either, Amy.  Fox people have admitted that.  Most of the Fox "people" do not agree with everything Bush is doing.  If you watched Fox you would be more informed on what they report.

He's a bitter old man (I'm sorry you are APPALLED about what I said/say).   Nope, I'm not getting any younger, Amy.  But I can call him what I want.  You have no trouble saying what you want.  You are the psychologist and sometimes I believe your opinion is a bit strong.  Geez, you could push someone OVER the edge, Amy.

To show you that I am fair and balance, Amy, here's a video that I'm sure you would enjoy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/13448047#13448047

And this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/11/rather.cbs/index.html

"Rather says CBS can overcome

Says he will keep lessons of the report 'well in mind'

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Posted: 9:19 PM EST (0219 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Veteran anchorman Dan Rather sent a memo to his CBS News colleagues Tuesday calling for "a renewed dedication to journalism of the highest quality."

Rather said in that way the network can overcome the negative fallout from a report by an independent panel highly critical of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment on President Bush's National Guard service.

"I have been here through good times and not so good times. I have seen us overcome adversity before," Rather wrote in his first public comments since the report was released Monday.

"I am convinced we can do so again. That must be our focus and priority."

"Lest anyone have any doubt, I have read the report, I take it seriously, and I shall keep its lessons well in mind," Rather said.

Rather returned to the anchor chair of the "CBS Evening News" Tuesday, after being absent Monday.

But he made no reference to the report or the Bush Guard story.

CBS made public Monday a scathing 234-page report by an independent panel commissioned by the network to investigate the September 8 report on Bush's Guard service, which was based on documents the network later conceded could not be authenticated.

Written by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi, who led the 10-member panel, the report concluded that the segment had "considerable and fundamental deficiencies."

It said competitive pressure to break the story in the heat of the presidential campaign prevented CBS News from thoroughly vetting the documents. (Full story)

In the wake of the report, the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, was fired, and three other executives were asked to resign.

But Rather -- who presented the story, vociferously defended it, and came under considerable fire from Bush supporters after it aired -- was not disciplined.

CBS President Les Moonves said Rather, who had already announced that he would leave the anchor chair in March, would not be punished because he had been only peripherally involved in producing the report and had relied on Mapes' assurances about the authenticity of the documents.

"His biggest sin was to trust a producer whom he'd worked with very successfully in the past," Moonves said.

He said Rather's decision to step down from the anchor chair was his own and was initiated before the Bush Guard segment aired.

Responding to Moonves, Mapes released a statement Monday insisting that the story was neither false nor misleading and accusing the network chief of "vitriolic scapegoating" motivated "by corporate and political considerations."

In his memo to the CBS News staff, Rather said the panel's report was "a necessary process to deal with a difficult issue, at the end of which four good people have lost their jobs."

"My strongest reaction is one of sadness and concern for those individuals whom I know and with whom I have worked," he wrote.

"It would be a shame if we let this matter, troubling as it is, obscure their dedication and good work over the years.

"Yet good can come from this process if CBS News, and the hundreds of able professionals who labor every day to fill an essential public service in an open society, emerge with a renewed dedication to journalism of the highest quality.

"We should take seriously the admonition of the report's authors to do our job well and carefully, but also their parallel admonition not be be afraid to cover important and controversial issues."

In the segment in question, which aired September 8 on the "60 Minutes Wednesday" program, Rather reported allegations that Bush used his family connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War era.

The story said that once Bush was in the Guard, he failed to fulfill his obligations and ignored a direct order to get a required physical.

Included in the story were four memos purportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander, in which he complained about Bush's conduct and said he was being pressured to "sugar coat" the future president's evaluations. Killian died in 1984.

The legitimacy of the documents came into question almost immediately after they became public.

After defending the report for 12 days, CBS News eventually admitted it could not vouch for the authenticity of the memos.

It disclosed that they were obtained from Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.

Rather apologized on the air."

Now....I shall brush myself off and move on.  Canada and Holland...hmmm...might be a very nice place, Amy.

Shirley

saluki

I find it hard to believe that sitting down with the pres of Iran would benefit anyone, and Amy, he's the guy who, at the university debates here in the US stated emphatically that there were NO gays in his country.  Yeah, right.

He also stated with certainty that the Holocaust was a fairy tale, made up by Jews for sympathy.  He has other beliefs that are way further off the wall than any conservative here in the states.

I can't see anyone sitting down with him and making any progress in changing his mind about ANYTHING.  He's just too ignorant and bigoted.

I think you are right on the mark Dottie.

The thought that you could sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never mind the truly strange Kim jong il and sing Kumbaya may have gotten my vote in my twenties but in my fifties --this is way too simplistic.

Bessie- I like allot of what you say as well and depending on McCain's running mate I still could vote for Hillary.

I trust McCain to choose Supreme court justices (again its my gut). And I also know he'll have to move to the right to unite his party.

If McCain saber rattles--its for leaving his options open -rather negotiate from a position of strength---I have no problem with that.

He says it like it is.

Doesn't want torture to be used---Duhhhhhh---even though his party is furious with him for this stance. 

I sincerely trust him on the war, and any position regarding our soldiers.

I am fond of Huckabee but amending the constitution is a definite deal breaker for me.

PS--Beesie-Thanks for the super delegate explanation.

Joan--Are you really going to be a "suicide voter?"

Remember that is how Al Gore lost the election(okay he won the election)---but those Nader voters really did make a difference!

Member_of_the_Club

I've stayed out of this one but no more. My vote is enthusiastically for OBAMA!!!!!!



he is brilliant, has terrific judgement, integrity, is calm under pressure and beyond reproach. Hillary is a smart cookie but she would sell out each and every one of her "ideals" in the service of her political ambitions. plus i think the Clintons have run a dirty campaign. Bill is a problem she hasn't addressed --what if they disagree, how will she control him? his mouth (as former president, not just any other husband.)



But mostly I don't trust her. And she keeps lying about her Iraq vote. She supported the war, enthusiastically, for a YEAR, long after many early supporters had become critical. And now she pretends her vote didn't matter. It mattered.



Its the fierce urgency of now. OBAMA!

saluki

MOTC

Well I guess you'll be glad to know Obama is winning overwhelmingly in

Nebraska.---waiting for Washington state where he has a huge lead. Louisiana's polls close at 9:00 --Tonight  will probably be a very big night for Obama- Amy--(courtesy of Fox-LOL)

Not getting into this one between you fervent Hillary and Obama supporters!

Now another odd one---There is now a push to redo the whole democratic primary in the states of Michigan and Florida and this time count the delegates. What do you gals think of this?

Anonymous

Susie, do you mean they're going to vote again?  Or is Ms. Hillary wanting them to count?

JoanofArdmore

Tiens?(WTF?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NYT Blogs

Obama to Clinton: About That Loan ...

By Jeff Zeleny

Barack Obama during an interview on his flight from New Orleans to Omaha, Neb. (Photo: Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)

Updated OMAHA -- Senator Barack Obama said today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's decision to not disclose her income tax returns raises questions about the decision to loan $5 million to her campaign.

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns -- that's been a policy I've maintained consistently," Mr. Obama said, speaking to reporters as he flew from Louisiana to Nebraska for a campaign rally. "I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from."

Mr. Obama stopped short of issuing a call for Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton to release their tax returns. His statement came in answering a question from a reporter about whether voters have a right to know where Mrs. Clinton's $5 million loan came from.

"As I've said, I've disclosed my income tax returns," Mr. Obama said, when asked again about the matter. "I think we've set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure. That's been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics."

Later, he added: "I'm not going to get into the intricacies of their finances. That's something that you'll have to ask them."

Clinton campaign officials said on Thursday that she would release her tax returns if she won the Democratic nomination, but argued that there was sufficient information in her publicly available Senate financial disclosure forms for voters and reporters to assess her personal finances.

In January, Mr. Obama raised $32 million for his Democratic presidential bid, the vast majority of which came from online contributions. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton was issuing her campaign a loan to remain competitive in the Super Tuesday states and beyond.

"I think there's no doubt that she has not generated the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that we have," Mr. Obama said. "It's not for lack of trying. She's got a former president actively fund raising for her as well as people like Terry McAullife, but what we've done is created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis."

Call it political tithing, where contributors send money to the Obama campaign as though it was the cable bill or the telephone bill.

"That is an enormous advantage to our campaign, something I'm very proud of because as I said, it comes up from the grassroots," Mr. Obama said.

Asked again whether he intended to accept Mrs. Clinton's invitation to participate in a series of debates, Mr. Obama said, "I've got to spend time with voters."

"We've got seven primaries in seven days. Senator Clinton is better known in a lot of these states," he said. "I've got to do more work on the ground."

He would, he said, agree to at least one debate. And maybe more.

Updated | 6:30 p.m. : Mr. Obama has agreed to two debates, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs. One is likely to be in Ohio. The location of the other one has not been agreed upon.

• Comments (300)
• E-mail this
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More evidence of her crookedness!

Susie if being a suicide voter is refusing to vote for her SHOULD she win, then I'm definately one!And I know lots of others!It amazes me that she has ANY supporters!

I just found out my primary doc is an Obama supporter, anti-Billary!

Member_of_the_Club

Something funky is happening in the state of Louisiana. I'm worried about my man.



But I can tell you driving around DC today that i saw only Obama yard signs, no Hillary signs. And while there is a large African-American community here, the Obama signs were in largely white neighborhoods. Its all about bringing everyone together. Can't wait to vote on tuesday.

saluki

Shirley--I heard it out of the mouth of one of the super delegates tonight.  Here is a little more......

----------------------------------

Caucuses a redo for Mich., Fla.?

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press


LANSING, Mich. — The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold presidential caucuses so the delegates they lost for holding January primaries could be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said Wednesday.

DNC member Debbie Dingell of Michigan said it's unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they've already held primaries, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29. She said the DNC is asking the states to consider such a plan.

Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said the party has no intention of holding another election.

"We've said all along that we're going forward with our delegate selection program using the vote on January 29," he said. "We've got more delegate applications than ever."

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said the DNC isn't saying anything it hasn't said before to Michigan and Florida.

"Everybody involved, the candidates, the DNC and we, need to remain open-minded. So if someone comes up with a creative way that meets everyone's interests, we can do that" and get the delegates seated, he said.

DNC spokesman Damien LaVera had no comment.

The stakes are increasingly high as Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton compete for the delegates they need to win the party's presidential nomination, a contest that could stretch to the spring.

The decision could end up being made at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, which makes the question of whether the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated an important strategic point.

Clinton won both states' primaries. Obama was on Florida's ballot but had pulled his name from Michigan's ballot because the state broke DNC rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15. That forced his Michigan supporters to vote for "uncommitted" and hope for a share of the uncommitted delegates.

It's unlikely that Clinton would favor holding caucuses, which could open the door to Obama victories in two states she has won. But there also is pressure to hold some kind of alternative election that meets DNC rules so the states don't have to wait to find out if the delegates will be seated.

Both states were stripped of their delegates for violating DNC rules by holding early primaries. Democratic leaders in both states expect the delegates will be seated at the convention, and Clinton recently said she would ask her delegates to support seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.

So far Obama has not heeded her call to do the same, and it's unlikely he would if it means Clinton would get the larger share of delegates from both states.

Florida has 185 pledged delegates and 25 superdelegates who face not being seated at the convention; Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

Brewer said he has continued to talk to both campaigns, stressing that Michigan is an important state for either candidate to win in November. Florida officials have said their swing state also could be crucial to a Democrat getting into the White House.

JoanofArdmore

MOTC YESSSSS!!!!

The yard signs in prosperous white neighborhoods (and in college towns) are our man's trademark!These are his biggest supporters--well-educated, well-off people, white or black..

You'd think blacks would be for him, and they are, especially in The South, and in more rural places.But in big cities there is a lot of Jessie Jackson-like attitude"He's gotta stop acting white". (I read, BTW that Jessie IS a Barack supporter!Jessie's WIFE isnt.)And these people are not necessarily wanting to be brought together w/his other supporters...

Here are 3 vignettes of this afternoon's grocery shop:

A young black woman who wears a Muslim headwrap and is  very stern of face went by about 4 times as I was talking to a friend I met.Smiling and waving.

I was wearing my Women for Obama button.She is obviously one!

In Whole Body, my button caught the team member's eye.She is a young white woman.She began to say how amazing she finds it that miss hillary has ANY supporters, We went on to say women are voting for her because they want a woman president, but billary is the WRONG woman!And as we talked on, a group of women of all ages! who wandered into the section, stood nodding, and joining the talk!

The store was crowded, and asI moved through, I would meet someone again occasionally as he shopped.He was a dignified older black man in gray flannel pants-my guess a prof at one of our colleges.

Each time we crossed  paths he would smile broadly and happily.When I got out to my car, there he was loading his car which was parked in front of me.Smiling to beat the band.

"Your candidate?"

"My candidate!"

That was a view of our Philly suburb today.But I dont think Billary will get this state, thanks to our Governor, Fast Eddie Rendell endorsing her.AND Philly's new mayor.

(Why I have no idea.I'm sure Billary campaigned to Fast Eddie for ages, but The Mayor???)

And yes, Susie, I will be a suicide voter against her, as will many others.You guys showed me the sense of not voting for McCaine....

saluki

Another reason I will consider McCain and another reason the conservatives are against him. He is pro life but supports stem cell research.

By the way the other reason the right is agaist McCain and Dobson say no way will he ever get is vote is because of this:

"McCain has said gay marriage should not be legal but has angered some conservatives with his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The Arizona senator said the issue should be left to the states. "

JoanofArdmore

MOTC!!

"-- Barack Obama wins Louisiana Democratic caucuses, CNN projects"

No worries!Our boy is JUST fine!!

katharine

OOPS! Looks like someone just heard she is losing delegates!

Better whip up some tears, Hill.

Just how stupid does she think the voters are?

Sat Feb 9, 4:12 PM ET Previous 49 of 102 Next

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wipes her eye as she listens to a disabled U.S. veteran in the audience tell his story during a campaign stop at The City of Lewiston Memorial Armory in Lewiston, Maine., Saturday, Feb. 9, 2007

katharine

  

Hillary rips MSNBC's Shuster
By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone
February 9, 2008 04:44 PM EST

  

ORONO, MAINE - Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday morning ripped MSNBC over reporter David Shuster's suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was "sort of being pimped out" by the campaign.

"I found the remarks incredibly offensive," Clinton told reporters in this snowy town outside Bangor. Earlier, she sent a letter to NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended Friday by MSNBC.

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.

"I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language," Clinton wrote. "There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate."

I wonder if Monica's Mom felt the same way.

badboob67

I've got to tell you, I am loving this thread! All of your opinions and insight are fascinating. I have been less than mildly enthused about this election. I think that I have come to the point of giving up hope that there is someone out there who really has what it takes to straighten out so many issues before us.

Health care is certainly something that I am very interested in. I remember being very excited when Bill Clinton was first elected because it seemed like there would be some headway made toward universal healthcare. (and I didn't even vote for him) It was so dissapointing that it just seemed to peter out. I do fear that allowing the government to administer a national healthcare system is a dangerous proposition. I am afraid that the system as it is now has become so flawed and corrupt that a true solution is going to be very difficult to devise and implement.

Whether or not one supported our troops in Iraq, the fact is that we are there now. I am very fearful that the situation there could become terribly dangerous during troop removal. It also bugs me that there is so much pressure for disclosure of a withdrawal plan. Letting the enemy know your plans is a sure recipe for disaster.

Mostly, I believe that most candidates who have reached the national level as congresspeople or presidential candidates are too far detached from the realities of the majority of people who live in this country. By the time someone has gained the experience we all desire in a candidate and raised the funds to campaign, I think they lose any idea of what those outside of the political arena are experiencing. 

My dad has threatened to place a write-in vote for Emma, his golden retriever. She does have some admirable qualities...

iodine

I do not see  how you can compare the two young women.  I certainly see NO comparison.  Altho Clinton was a white house daughter, she's not gone down on anyone that we know of and Monica is a tramp, and got caught with a guy who was too egotistical to think it wouldn't matter if he got caught in adultery and then lied under oath.  And is married to a woman who should have kicked him to the curb decades ago except she wanted to be  exactly where she is right now.  And she and Bill have , IMO, committed some of the shadiest personal gain deals going among the pols who have made it to DC.  We just  don't know about the other pols or either they are 2-3rd generation and didn't have to do the deals, their dads or granddads did, and made all the money.

I really feel for both Mom's -- would have hated to have seen my daughter referred to in either incidence, but certainly would have wondered what I had taught mine if she were Monica. 

Blundin2005

Good morning all,

Bessie, from one "outsider" to another (half) ... I very much enjoy your contributions to this thread....BTW I am waiting to receive my citizenship here and it will be dual citizenship.

Susie, sitting down for discussion with people of different views...such as Iran...facilitates a presence. 

Diplomacy takes much time and patience...and in the hands of well intentioned people, it is very effective.

I know a man who is retired from the UN...one of the most patient and kind people I've ever met.  He was asked to help and to go to Africa a couple of years ago....it was a dangerous journey. When he returned I asked if he thought it was helpful.  He answered only that if they didn't try today, people died.  He lives in the present and is a very positive person.....it happens too that he is knowledgeable person.

During the Vietnam war there was a monk who sat at the peace table.  His name is Thich Nhat Hanh.  From his own words he tells the story of the people in the village who asked what to do when it was bombed.  He told them to rebuild...and they did....over and over again....until there was truly peace.

The wisdom is that together they found strength in the face of some of the most unspeakable abuse of the human body and spirit.  And when peace was reached, they found joy again too.

His teachings helped to keep me going through my own trials of life, that couldn't compare to the horrors of Viet Nam.

I believe that persistent faith in peace is not wasted time or naive....it simply is what it is....and needs room to flourish given enough care and support.  

Disappointment isn't on my agenda today or any day.  But eventually it will happen sometime in life because.....it simply is what it is....and human nature is not infallible.  What is most important is how to deal and live with it....in the same manner as we can learn to deal and live with peace.

  

MOTC--I enjoyed to read your post very much and agree so much with your summary of Sen. Clinton.....an exhale moment so to speak. 

Best wishes to all...as always