CNN

TOM:

Well I haven't seen any blog comments, media reports, or newspaper editorials from working or stay at home Moms stating they felt insulted or degraded by her comment. Then I'm sure there aren't many working Moms who have time today to bake cookies very often. And even the stay at home Moms today have more than a busy schedule trying to keep up with all the responsibilities that fall under their jurisdiction.

RICK:
There were more Candidates than Hillary that voted for the war and now say they wouldn't have knowing what they know now. Barack for one. And also more Candidates than Hillary who stated they would fund the war but implement a time table to begin bringing the troops home. To not fund a War already in Progress with Bush Stating He'd Veteo any time tables for bringing troops home would be a vote to leave the Military without the equipment they need to do the job and try to maintain some level of safety while doing it. What American would not vote to fund the war while their troops were in the trenches?

And You Bet I'd Vote For Her If She Were Nominated. In my view, there are only two choices to date, Hillary and Barack. And unlike some who voted for Bush twice. I wouldn't have voted for him the once!

Nashville, Tennessee. See above. Romney threw out the embezzlers and other crooks...I see him doing the same in DC.

Jon in Sacramento … give the “Clinton Voted for the Iraq War!!!” and “Dems/Congress voted for this war” shtick a rest already. They voted for the Iraq war based on the bogus and selective intel – primarily the “imminenet threat” of WMDs pushed by Dubya. It’s a well known fact that without the WMD angle being shoved down everybody’s throat that NOBODY except the White House would have favored the invasion – not Congress and not the people of this country. Congressmen have already said that if they knew then what they know now (that the decade-old WMD hearsay was BS), they never would have authorized an invasion.

I’ll paraphrase a memo (via http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm) entitled “Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information” sent from Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Alfred Cumming, (Specialist in Intelligence and National Security in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division):

“The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be "the owner" of national intelligence. As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President – in contrast to Members of Congress have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.”

It also states that the executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information: 1) the identities of intelligence sources (like disgraced whackjobs like Ahmad Chalabi and Curveball); 2) the "methods" employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence (like via torture in secret prisons); 3)"raw" intelligence, which can be unevaluated or "lightly" evaluated intelligence, which in the case of human intelligence sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals and imagery collection methods are employed (like the VERY “lightly” evaluated intel concerning those “mobile weapons labs” touted by Powel that turned out to be nothing more than water trucks); and 4) certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers (like the President's Daily Brief).

So basically, he can reveal selected (favorable and “lightly evaluated”) pieces of intel, not reveal their source (Chalabi, Curveball, etc), and/or not reveal how it was obtained (via he application of “torture” until something/anything is said to stop it). And he can do all of this – legally – as he sees fit. So yeah, other than all of that mentioned above, Congress saw everything that Bush and his administration saw before he invaded Iraq. And yet this lie keeps getting repeated much like the Fox News favorite “Osama was offered to Clinton and Clinton turned him down” lie – Syria offered to send Osama to SAUDI ARABIA, and SAUDI ARABIA refused him. The point is, Dubya, as head of he Executive branch, has the ability to restrict what ANYBODY sees … and thus the ability to hide the conflicting info and push the supporting info. And guess which info he made damn sure everybody saw?

The supporting info – a consciously calculated SUBSET of the intel that Bush had at his disposal. So yeah, they saw “everything” ... everything that BOLSTERED his case for war ... regardless of how credible it was. It’s what’s called “modifying the intel to fit the policy”, or selective intelligence dissemination. The White House even acknowledged it can restrict certain intel when it defended the 149 signing statements that Dubya has used to skirt congressional laws he’s supposed to be following, saying that the president has authority to withhold information from Congress that it considers privileged.

And here’s a specific example of that selective information restriction. On September 25, 2006, it was revealed that a leaked (to the press) portion of the National Intelligence Estimate (put out by the National Intelligence Council) concludes that the Iraq war has WORSENED the terrorist threat to the United States. The New York Times, which reported on the document, said that the new NIE document "attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee."

And here’s where the “restriction” part comes in … TWICE!

First: The document (the most comprehensive report on intelligence provided by the government) began compilation in 2004 and concluded in April. In APRIL! About the same time Bush was touting all the progress he’s made during the war – something he CONTINUED to do even as a second consecutive increase in troops was on the way there! And continued to do up until he got slapped back to reality by the Nov 2006 congressional elections and by his own Sec of Defense when Robert Gates admitted to a senate committee that we were NOT winning the war.

Yet this FIVE MONTHS-OLD document had NOT, as of 09/25/06, been shared with senators (CONGRESS). And WHY was that? Because it was classified, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told ABC's "This Week."

And Second: the White House only ended up SELECTIVELY declassifying and releasing PARTS of the report! A total of four pages (out of 30) were declassified. But what about the other 26 pages we didn’t see? Apparently those pages – that ones that didn’t paint such a rosy picture were conveniently “matters of national security” and therefore couldn’t be released. I guess we’re just lucky that the damned “traitorous” media got their hands on it, otherwise we wouldn’t have seen ANY of it at all!

Now stop blaming anyone who voted for a war when they were spoon-fed bogus intelligence by the person who owned it.

And to answer your question, yes I probably would still vote for Hillary over ANY of the current Bush clones on the repub side except for MAYBE Ron Paul, since he's the only one that is blaming out self-serving foreign policies for helping create the enemies we have now. I'll have to do more research on him though and see how often he goes to bat for religious agendas.

Rick in Chicago...

And you're ok that Hillary voted for the war.. BEFORE she was against it. NOW she's agaisnt it, no wait .. she voted to fund the troops but she definitely NOT for the war. Well..um.. we're not really sure WHAT she stands for.. but you'd vote for her if she were the nominated candidate, yes?

"Tom from Dedham Mass, is against Hillary because she said she’s not home baking cookies and he thinks all women should be so in his mind she snubbed American Women
Tricia M Charlottetown PEI"
============================
What's your point?

If you are ok with Hillary saying "Well at least I am not just home baking cookies", go ahead and vote for her.

That was an insult to the many stay at home Mom's and the working women who actually are home for their children cooking a nice dinner and being a good mom. She degraded them, not me.

That is not he only reason I dislike her.

Also Mitt Romney before his term was up in Mass, helped get legislation passed that made health care a reality in the state.

Even Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy applauded his efforts in getting this done.

and good for the individual since they wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not their insurance company was going to approve their treatment and how much they will have to pay out of pocket.

No Instead, they would just have to worry if some beauracrat will approve the operation. Oh, sorry, so and so, our budget doesnt account for your needed operation, and youve overshot your allowance. Damn shame..

Talk about the status quo. It is sad to see a man worth several hundred million dollars ignore the health care crisis in this country. 'An offensive posture on terror"? This guy is Bush all over again–Bush's approval is at 30% and Romney is no different than Bush

BLAKE: NO CITY NO STATE! He must be privilidged I can't get my comments to post without including both.

"when it comes to the economy, Romney’s the guy. Look what he did with Massachusetts. Look what he did with the Olympics."
When Romney takes up the war where Bush left off you can forget about your economy! He'll need Olympians and lots of embezzlers to bring the economy under control!

Paul, you're a professor? If you impeach Bush, you'll have Cheney for President. Would that make you happy? Obviously the impeachment isn't worthwhile.

To all of you who think he sounds so wonderful... bush sounded wonderful too... he said just what you wanted to hear... has he done even one thing that he promised? Think about it.

when it comes to the economy, Romney's the guy. Look what he did with Massachusetts. Look what he did with the Olympics.

I think Romney has taken more Econ classes than Evan in Indiana, who, I doubt, is worth more than Romney with his own mad economic prowess.

"Romney citied the recent terror incidents in the United Kingdom as an example of why he believes an offensive posture on terror is necessary." “America will either remain the world’s superpower or instead become just another member of the family of nations. If we choose strength, we will be remembered by our children as a great generation. If we choose weakness, we will be remembered as something much less.”

This reads like a sound bite from George Dubyah – Become a Super Power or just another member of the family of nations, will be remembered by our children if we choose strength...

Just what the World needs, another power hungry, war loving, trigger happy, Biblical Camelion.

Read between the lines America, it's another Bush Super Power ego and war loving nature, the one that put the world in the Mess we're in today. Too Bad America wouldn't just try to be another member of the family of nations they might not have so many Nations loathing their existence!

Tom from Dedham Mass, is against Hillary because she said she's not home baking cookies and he thinks all women should be so in his mind she snubbed American Women, and Romney is against Hillary (today) because she's going to raise Corporate and Personnal taxes..but tomorrow he'll be against Hillary and Barack for something else.
As the one behind has to attack the leaders so they don't get caught in the Head Lights with a blank stare.

I have to admit, I am impressed. Mr. Romney did speak up for his opponent, he said Sen. Obama had "the courage" and I agree with that also. But, Mr. Romney said one thing among many, that I really liked, that he would cap NON Defense discretionary.."
He KNOWS our Defense need the funds.
I also really liked Mr. Ramney's comment of "I will veto them." Excluding Defense dicretionary's. That IS courage and calling the shots as they should be. And he said "I don't care if its a Republican or a Democratic Congress. I will veto." Those last three words, he's telling the public now, he will do it, if necessary.
On these issues, I REALLY like Mr. Ramney's attitude, he sounds just like the one he's running to replace. And that is what this country needs, to keep on the right track.

FORGET RELIGIOUS ZEALOT, ROMNEY... PRESIDENT BUSH JR. SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED 2 YEARS AGO OVER THE IRAQI 'W.M.D.' LIES. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE DEMOCRATS WHEN REPUBLICANS PUT BILL CLINTON THOUGH THIS HELL FOR ONLY HAVING SEX WITH AN AIDE?? ARE THESE 2 PARTIES IN CAHOOTS? SOMETHING'S GONE VERY WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY TODAY!

You guys love ... Romney? O.K. so which do you love more – his flips or his flops? But hey, who wouldn't love a guy who makes up his political platform as he goes along right? Does he suffer from short-term memory loss, or does he just wait to see what everybody else is currently supporting before he decides what his convictions are?

Let's see .. here's a short list of his flip-flops to date: Romney: 1) was a liberal in Massachusetts, where he TWICE ran for statewide office as a pro-CHOICE candidate but now says he opposes Roe v. Wade; 2) he was dedicated to "full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens" and now describes himself as "a champion of traditional marriage"; 3) he signed a no-new-tax pledge (that he once mocked) in an attempt to hide his tax-raising record; 4) in Massachusetts, he bucked the National Rifle Association by supporting the Brady Bill and an assault-weapons ban, boasting, "I don't line up with the NRA.", yet (in August of 06) he bragged that he joined the gun-rights organization as a life member; 5) he was FOR gays serving open in the military before he was AGAINST it; 6) he endorsed federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research in 2005, but now claims he opposes it 7) "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he told a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap – even though he’s been on a total of TWO hunting trips in his 60 years! Romney said he doesn’t believe in overturning juries, yet he fully supported Dubya’s commuting of Scooter Libby’s sentence before a single day of jail time was ever served.

Nice "specifics" eh Brian? No "speaking in cliches or vagueness" there Shawnie right? "Logical, specific, intelligent, and well-versed"? ... umm ... if you say so S. Richard!

No wonder republicans want to vote for a guy who hasn't even declared his candidacy yet!

Fell free to add more Romney flip-flops if you wish guys.

Vote for Romney and he'll tie this nation to the roof of his $80,000 family car and take us for one heck of a ride! Just ask his Dog! Its called the 'Clean Air Initiative'. Tie the USA up, and fill us full of hot (yet clean?) air.

The Young Republicans are basically the political version of Scientologists. Brainwashed and hollow shells of their former selves. Sorry!

Romney talks now, but for some reason, I don't believe a word he says because I don't quite think he knows what he's talking about. He's not consistent, and he's not open. And him and the rest of the GOP who are using Hilary as a punching bag for Democratic party are being absolutely ridiculous, for a number of reasons. I think Romney, like many of the other Repulicans in this race, fail to realize they are in this election not only against the Democrats but against the current Republican party and the public's persona of them. Clearly there are some die-hard Republicans in the room who will support a bludgeoned war and praise an economic sysem that neither party truly seems to understand, but when it comes down to it, Romney needs to stop criticizing the Democrats, stop praising his personal ideals, and focus on getting his facts straight. Because seriously, I can see his own words haunting him in the next few months to come.

You may like what Romney says now, but what did he say yesterday? And what will he say tomorrow? A model of consistency he is not. Enacting a socialized medicine program in the most communist state in the Union (Mass.) is hardly qualifier number 1 for the Oval Office. Romney ought to stop loaning his campaign money and retire to Vegas and enjoy himself. Nobody is going to let you buy the Presidency, sir, not this time. If the republicans are foolish enough to nominate you, democrats win hands down.

Mitt Romney preaching the Holy Grail to young Republicans against the sinfulness of taxation of the wealthy. That's a far cry from than JFK's 1960 Inaugural Address about sacrifice by the individual for the benefit of the whole country. His warmongering tirade is also typical of one who has never seen combat railing to those who will also never see combat, of the virtues of a hair trigger view of war & of also the unforgivable character flaw of being considered "soft" on Terrorism or Communism or the enemy d' j'our. The future of the Republican Party is in good shape. Presidential politics brings out the best in some "leaders".

Why no coverage of (10 term) Congressman Ron Paul (MD) winning the straw poll in New Hampshire yesterday?

If one of the MSM candidates would have won, you SURELY would have posted a story. Hell, you evern post stories about Rudy reading a book on NASCAR.

The amount of money one spends on 'defense' will not determine how well we a protected. How does awarding no-bid contracts to contractors who, making so much money are determined to make more profit and thus cut corners and deliver crap, because crap is all we are paying for at this moment and not only does it not make us safer, it is endangering our citizens and our nation. Cutting the defense budget in half wouldn't hurt our defense if the money is spent wisely, and having less money to work with will force it to be spent wisely.
The Iraqi's owe us nothing since we have caused them more suffering. They worked to try and make it work, they went out with the threat of violence to vote, but we failed them by not being prepared to secure the peace. We failed ourselves by invading because it was not in our interest, but only in the interest of those who had the chance to make a profit off of it.

Clinton cut the deficit by doing one thing only, SHREDDING DEFENSE SPENDING.

How'd that work out in protecting us from the numerous American installations being bombed with little or no response from Billy boy?

Before he left office we were in a recession right after the dotcom boom went bust and because of Bushes across the board tax cut we had the SHORTEST recession in history.

How are those big screen TV's, IPOD, IPHONES and SUV's selling?

Our deficit is indeed too high but that is due to the war and we should be getting some dough from these Iraqi's that aren't doing enough to secure their own freedom.

On to Romney, he gives specific ideas and they are based on actual experience in the real business world.

Do any of you totally think like you did 10-20 years ago, people do evolve based on lifes experiences.

I used to be a democrat because my union told me to be, now I know better.

I hate when politicians step into the realm of economics when they obviously never took macroecon 101. Slowing down the economy by raising taxes is not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps inflation in check, and it makes sure that the natural swings in the business cycle don't go get out of control. So when there is a downturn, it won't be as serious.

Heh...see some of the Kool-Aid drinkers are here. This man is hypocrisy personified. Why are you falling for this stuff? Didn't four years of Shrub tell you guys anything? He's cut from the same cloth...well, he IS a Republican, so I guess the state of our nation is all right with you, then.

What happened to America?

Romney is so logical, specific, intelligent, and well-versed

I'm confused: was this when he was specifically pro-choice, or specifically pro-life? When he was specifically pro-stem-cell-research, or specifically against it? When he was specifically for civil unions for gays, or specifically against? Specifically for gays serving openly in the military, or specifically against?

Maybe he should take some time off from his varmint hunting and clarify.

“And whenever you take money away from citizens, and give their money to government, you slow down the economy.”

What a moron.

Yes it slows the economy. Sometimes the economy needs slowing - ask the Federal Reserve Board. Whether slowing the economy is good or bad is entirely sitational.

Furthermore, the reason it slows the economy is that when you raise taxes without increasing spending, you lower the deficit. This provides less stimulus. Keynes figured this out some time ago. And the thing is, it doesn't matter if you raise taxes or lower spending. Either one will slow the economy, to precisely the same degree.

Yet he goes on to advocate lowering spending, which will have precisely the same effect as raising taxes. The guy seriously needs to take ECON 102 some time.

If any spending needs to be capped, it is so called 'defense' spending which takes up more than half of the official budget at the moment (this does not include the costs of the war in Iraq).

“If I am elected president, I will cap non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent,” Romney said. “If Congress sends me appropriations that exceeds that cap, I will veto them. I don’t care if it’s a Republican or a Democratic Congress. I will veto.”

Romney is so logical, specific, intelligent, and well-versed. I love the guy.

"The right answer for healthcare isn't government, and the new Secretary of Health and Human Services should not be Michael Moore."

Romney knows what he's talking about.

Romney is the only candidate so far that doesn't speak in cliches and vagueness. Romney is so studied and specific about the problems and the solution. He is out to make America better.

He is telling the truth about Hillary's approach, he is telling the truth about Obama's approach. If you like that approach, more taxes and government agencies, that's fine.

Romney made universal health care work in a much more efficient way without involving more wasteful government bureaucracy.

And yes, government mucks up and red tapes to death whatever they touch. He is wise to suggest a smaller government approach to universal health care rather than a larger one.

Romney and other Republican candidates love to bleat on and on about Reagan's tax cuts, but seem to have forgotten that Reagan also raised taxes.

Every time there is a campaign Republicans bring out the bogeyman that Democrats will raise taxes. There would be no need for a tax increase if Republicans, who had total control for six years, had not made use of so much deficit spending not to mention how much this war is adding to the debt. Clinton went out creating what would have been one of, if not the greatest surplus in our governments history. Then Bush and his fellow Republicans went and gave everyone a refund and now has burdened our country with a debt that threatens the stability of this nation.

As for health care, if you replace the premiums people and businesses will pay with a tax for a nationalized system, it will cost less for businesses and individuals. In the end it would be good for business (except for the bloated health insurance companies) since they wouldn't have to pay out so much, and good for the individual since they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not their insurance company was going to approve their treatment and how much they will have to pay out of pocket. The private system has proven itself to be morally corrupt since it puts profit above human well being and life.

I love this guy, I appreciate the fact that he has specifics in his plans contrary to many other candidates.