Ed in N.C.

NOW YOU HAVE MET A PERSON VOTING FOR HILLARY.

WHY IS IT THAT THE NEWS MEDIA HATES THE CLINTON'S ?

ESPECIALLY HILLARY . THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLAINATION

THE NEWS REPORTERS WILL

DECIDE WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE AND THEY HAVE ALREADY

DECIDED ON MCCAIN OR OBAMA . NO HARD QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

Well, come to this part of the country and you'll meet plenty of Hillary's supporters. Do you perhaps think that her consistent lead in the polls is just a figment of the pollsters' imagination???

I would hope our next president can admit when they were wrong and change course when needed instad of just yelling louder and ignoring reality. Clinton bought into the Iraq lie just like half of America. Now that the truth has become clearer, she has adjusted her position. The last thing this country needs is another president who can't detatch ideology from reality.

If Dawn had spent the last few years on the ground in Iraq working alongside General Petraeus, her position might merit serious consideration. However, basing her position on what the Washington Post says is mere punditry.

It perfectly illustrates a more alarming problem we have in this country: Americans generally place more faith in what the media reports to us than in what the ground truth is.

http://WWW.ronpaul2008.com

HILLARY CLINTON'S STATURE SO OBVIOUSLY

PANDERING FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT!!!

I have yet to run into one person who admits that he/she is for Hillary.
Posted By Ed NC : September 14, 2007 8:39 pm

Where do you live IDAHO?

She tests which way the wind blows...win war is popular she jumps on the war hawk bandwagon. When anti-war sentiment is more popular she changes her stance.

What is even worse is she has made contradictory statements recently about keeping as many as 50,000 troop in Iraq indefinitely. So truly she is having it both ways and lacks credibility. If you vote for her, you don't know what you're getting.

Whereas with Obama, Paul or even the war hawk...you know exactly where they stand.

Giuliani, McCain and these other censorous fascists are the ones to throw the hell out of the country.

This is free speech land. ESPECIALLY when that speech is truth.

The Joe McCarthy smear crap won't work this time, fearful Repubs.

"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests in our nation..."

What is she saying today?

What will she say if elected?

One really never knows.

Why not just vote Bush back in and relive the last eight years all over again!

A vote for Giuliani or Thompson could only be likened to another victory for Bush or a vote for Barney Rubble and Fred Flintstone.

What are these Americans thinking? Do you put no value in Leadership Qualities, International Diplomacy, Experience, Truth, Justice, Morals, the American Constitution, America's Image?

Then there are the Ron Paul supporters!
More Scarry! The man looks so frail I doubt he'd make it through his first year of Presidency. Of course he won't have to worry as there is NO chance he will be nominated!

Thank God these Americans don't come even near to being a majority! Our World is frightening enough

Why do you choose to believe an organization who justified their attack on an individual, who is mandated by law to conduct his duties in the best interest of the Nation and free of political bias, based on opinion polls and biased op ed articles?

Don't you think the assessment of a professional Soldier who has spent several years on the ground in Iraq working directly with and against the major players in the region holds some weight over the opinions of partisan journalists (who get their information from second and third hand sources)?

How do you know General Petraeus is a liar? Have you spent a few years in Iraq and worked with their government or been on a patrol in Sadr City with the ISF or a humanitarian mission in al Anbar? I doubt it...you base your opinions on the information other people, who may be biased, provide you.

I think people who believe in Moveon.org's attack are instead blinded by partisanship and their dislike of the President. They mistakelnly equate General Petraeus with the Iraq policy, instead of the man charged with carrying it out (whether he agrees with it or not).

Rudy Giuliani was correct in calling out Moveon.org for this unjustified attack.

The original problem was that Sen. Clinton in a convoluted coin of phrase at the hearing basically called the General a liar with her "suspension of disbelief" comment. Was that really necessary. Did she have to give such a critical opening statement? If she were TRULY presidential she would have stayed above the fray and gone straight to the questioning. While doing so, she could have asked some hardball questions and listened to the responses and try to use the information.

Instead, she had to grandstand and throw in a snide remark to try and discredit the general and take a shot at the administration.

There is no doubt that the next president of our country will at some point have to deal with the Iranian and other middle eastern entities. Having lived in a Muslim country for a couple of years earlier in my adult life, I can tell you that as a woman, she will go into ANY negotiating session with middle eastern leader already having a strike against her because of her gender.

Will her tact suddenly improve? If she lacks respect for one of our own trying to accomplish the mission set forth before him, how will she do in the big leagues. She has every right to not agree with that mission and to question its effectiveness, but to insult your counterpart prior to asking them for information is not a good plan.

Gen. Petraeus is a highly decorated and respected Military Officer having served us and both Republican and Democrat administrations.

Hillary Clinton has no comparable experience(except blowing hot air in the Senate) and thinks she can simply ride the coattails of her highly successful husband....ain't gonna work.

I would love to vote the Dems their
turn in the White House(I voted for Bush and he totally screwed up.........Democrats must find a more qualified candidate.

I also wonder how many Americans have realised what a bad attiude that lady has. I wonder why she is so proudful. And they do say pride comes before a fall.

Look Mr Giuliani, Your face betrays a trobled personality. What!? the American voters can't see that?

Please continue to make a fool and a clown of yourself...and go get yourself a 4th wife.

Democrats are supposed to step away from "Move-On" but its fine and dandy for the Republicans to party with the Swift-Boaters.

GOP hypocrisy at work – as usual.

The ad pointed out that Petraeus was working for the Bush administration, had previously spoken out in favor of Bush policy, and was essentially on a p.r. campaign for the surge. The ad also pointed out what everyone knows - see Paul Krugman's column in today's times - which is that the surge has failed.

Clinton's problem with liberals is not that she changed her position on Iraq, but that she did so without ever repudiating her original support for the war. She and other Democrats backed Bush, and did so not because they thought he would behave responsibly, but because Democrats were concerned that, if they opposed him, they'd be accused of being "soft on terrorism." It's ironic that Giuliani is trying to "swift boat" Clinton by calling her a "flip-flopper" AND a "radical." The problem for liberals is that Clinton was insufficiently "radical" in 2002 and has yet to acknowledge her mistake.

Finally, Giuliani's attack on Clinton was aimed at undermining Fred Thompson, his competitor for support from the Republican base. Thompson has attacked Clinton - he's running as the "anti-Clinton" - and Rudy followed his lead, hoping to prevent him from making in-roads among conservatives. This is not about Clinton - at least not yet.

As for MoveOn - if the public had listened to MoveOn in the last election, we'd be out of Iraq by now. People continue to react emotionally to stupid rhetoric rather than looking at the facts. Krugman reports today that Bush's cronies are buying up oil in Kurdish areas of Iraq, apparently in anticipation of a partition. They know something we don't want to hear, and they didn't find out what they know by listening to Giuliani's political tirades. That should tell you something, too, about who is "betraying us."

He is right to attack Clinton because she is wrong on national security, wrong on healthcare, and wrong on illegal immigration.

claimed he did more work at ground zero than real rescue workers, while he was really spending more time at Yankee Stadium;

put NYC's emergency response center in the WTC after it had already been attacked once in 1993 and against the advice of everyone in the security business;

failed to provide the communications needed by fire and rescue workers that would prevented many deaths during the attack on the WTC on 9/11;

and tried to get his criminal partner, Bernie Kerok, put in charge of the Homeland Security Department.

Hillary has changed her views on Iraq. I prefer Barack Obama. Still, whenever any Democrat is attacked by this pretend leader, that candidate must step up and, instead of just defending themselves, HIT BACK.

Ultimately, it's the Dem who does that best who I will vote for when push comes to shove. Why? It's the only way we will win in '08.

Or does this mean more 911s ??

Please explain your self Hillary ??

And you idiots at CNN please explain yourself as well.