CNN

Xymex – (if you are still out there)

I knew I could get someone to bite. You figured out I was being sarcastic. Wow, that is surprising. Now to clarify my beliefs on how I have been indoctrinated.

1. No Xymex, your missing the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have been more clear but I was not referring to private individuals who I depend on for the basic necessities of life. I was suggesting that liberal politicians tend to want the government to provide everything and be in total control. This is how they maintain their power. (see Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, etc) Liberal citizens tend to want everything provided to them by the government.

I personally do not want the government to be involved in my personal life whatsoever. I do not need their assistance to pay my bills, go to the doctor, buy food, educate my children, or decide how I can worship.

2. No I do not feel that the government is using my money wisely. And I do not think that by obtaining more of it they would make better choices. All I know is that democrats will take more of my money to pay for things I don’t agree with. (I.E., giving savings bonds to every newborn child – notice the word give – I don’t want the government to give me anything and I don’t want them to use their police powers to take my money to give it to others. I donate a lot of money. I don’t need the government to tell me where I have to “donate” my money.

3. Ok, you got me on this one. What I should have said is that liberals treat global warming as if it were a religion. I can honestly say I have never heard anyone call global warming their religion. Please accept my apology on behalf of all of the rational people in the world who know that an avg. temperature climb of 1 degree over the last 100 years is not much of a warming trend.

4. Sorry, I was educated in government schools and cannot go from 1 to 10 without skipping four.

5. The Patriot Act violates my freedoms. No, I don’t think so. It violates the rights of known terrorists who are not citizens of the United States and therefore not entitled, nor do they deserve any protection from the Bill of Rights. Yeah I know, Bush violated the search and seizure thing by obtaining wiretaps without approval. Who cares, Bush is a moron and most Republicans are morons as well.

6. No my friend, universal health care does not work. When the government is in charge of things they don’t improve the efficiency. In fact, it is usually the opposite. More paperwork, more red tape, more incompetence. If you don’t believe me that’s fine. (we can both throw out stats all day long to support our claims.) Again, I don’t want to depend on the government for anything, much less my health. I will take my chances and pay for my own health care. It is MY responsibility to take care of myself and my family.

7. Yes, our borders have been uncontrolled for decades. Conservatives for the most part want to close them. Liberals on the other hand will hand over the keys to the gates so that they can get the latino vote.

8. No I am not suggesting that people should not be allowed to question or speak out against the military. I just don’t want to be around them because they make me want to vomit.

9. Yes, I do think the government should have a role in legislating morality. Just not the federal government. The Constitution lets it be known exactly what the role of the federal government is, and what it is not. Our federal government has completely lost control and has taken over most of the functions that the states were supposed to deal with. We do have laws that legislate morality. One that comes to the top of my head is murder. Which is exactly what occurs when a mother kills her unborn child.

And just for your information, I do believe that our nation was founded on Christian principals. If you are any sort of scholar or historian and take the time to read documents from that time period, you will clearly understand this. I also strongly support the 1st amendment. The federal government shall make no law establishing a religion.

Unfortunately the “Separation of Church and State” phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson (an avid Christian who authorized Church services in the U.S. Capital by the way) has been used by the liberal establishment to try to remove religion from our lives. The federal government should not make a law which says a person has to worship a particular God. But they should also not be involved with schools, etc who decide what to teach and what not to teach. That should be left up to the individual county, district, or state. If I don’t want my kids to learn about a particular religion at school then I have choices. I can leave that particular school, or that particular county, or the state for that matter until I find a school that fits with my beliefs.

Xymex it is ashamed that I will never convince you to see things my way, and you will never convince me to see things your way. Liberals and Conservatives should just separate. We are both wasting each others time and getting absolutely nothing accomplished. Even if our wacko President has a good idea, the liberal democrats won’t go with it. And even if our wacko Speaker of the House has a good idea, the conservative Republicans won’t go with it. How about you guys take the left,
I mean West coast, and we’ll take the right, I mean East coast? Sounds like a good plan to me. What do you think?

...and in other news, I still have a pulse.

Go back to bed Mondale. We will wake you when it is over.

The day Mondale lost the presidency was the beginning of the end for this country. Reagan began the practice of driving up debt and destroying the dollar's value. This will result in the collapse of our economy and power.

Mondale= irrelevant.

Positive campaign? She's slung more slime at Obama than I can think of! Who is this dude kidding?

Obama has run the most positive campaign in US history. He brings people together. He's intelligent and strong and he's passed more bipartisan bills in IL and THE US SENATE than Hillary has by far. He's passed the first ethics reform in a generation, which is why Hillary can't use that Wall Mart provided jet anymore to get to speeches.

Obama = POSITIVE. Hillary + flipflops + war = WWIII.

Having Mondale endorse you is the political equivalent of getting the kiss of death from the Godfather!

Rodak in Sacramento:

[I dunno folks, I really want to be a liberal. I am disgusted with the Republicans but I just can't seem to grasp the whole liberal thought process. Can someone indoctrinate me and tell me how I am missing the big picture?]

Indoctrinate? Interesting choice of words. I suspect you’ve been “indoctrinated” already.

I also suspect that you’ve got no real desire to be a liberal, and that your straw man arguments are intended to ridicule liberal beliefs.

Unfortunately, you’ve been grossly misinformed. Let me address your points one at a time.

1. Why would I want to be dependent on someone else for my basic needs?

You ARE dependent on someone else for your basic needs, whether you want to be or not. Unless, of course, you actually grow all of your own food, sew your own clothes, made your own house, built and service your car, are your own doctor, etc. What does this have to do with liberalism?

2. Why would I want the federal govt. to take even more of MY money?

It depends. Do you think the federal govt. is using your money wisely? How about the money they’re borrowing from China?

3. Why would I want to call "global warming" my religion, cause it sure isn't going to get me to heaven.

This is a loaded question. Who calls global warming a religion? I doubt that they’re liberals.

5. Why would I want to give up so many freedoms which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

Ask the authors of the Patriot Act.

I find it interesting that you equate liberalism with a loss of freedom. Would you care to elaborate on how liberals are threatening our rights?

Afterwards, you can explain how the liberals involved with the civil rights movement were opposed to freedom.

6. Why would I want to wait in long lines to receive inadequate health care just so people who are too stupid or lazy to get a good job can have insurance too?

This is another loaded question. Universal Health Care, if implemented wisely, can work. The UK has health care for everyone, and their system works pretty well.

As an aside: So everybody who doesn’t have a good job is stupid or lazy, eh? Nice.

7. Why would I want to live in a country that has no borders where drugs, terrorists, and felons can cross at will?

Our borders have been open for DECADES—through many administrations, both Republican and Democratic. How is liberalism to blame for this?

8. Why would I want to live in a country where our military is mocked, ridiculed, and disrespected?

Are you suggesting that people don’t have the right to question or speak out against the military? That’s an interesting position, considering that, in question 5 above, you speak of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

9. Why would I want to live in a country where homosexuals, well never mind.

Why would you want to live in a country where the government legislates morality? Again, I direct you to question 5, and to the Bill of Rights.

10. Why would I want to live in a country where a woman's right to be selfish is considered more important than killing an unborn child.

Why would you want to live in a country where the government can dictate what women can do with (and to) their bodies? Once again…see the Bill of Rights.

Bravo Mr. Mondale, you are so right.

While all other candidates, Republican and Democratic alike, have wallowed in negativity, finger pointing and mudslinging, Mrs. Clinton has remained above the fray. Mrs. Clinton’s positive campaign style is simply one more indication that she is ready to lead this country away from the negativity of the past seven years. In choosing the high road, Mrs. Clinton has put all other candidates to shame.

In the end, the majority of Americans will see that a brighter, more positive future is possible for America.

Mondale, eh?

THIS is the best Hillary can do? This guy lost his hat, coat and posterior to Reagan in 1984, so badly that Mondale only won his home state (and even then, he won by fewer than 3,800 votes).

I'm sure he's a nice guy and a fine gentleman, but he's not exactly what one would call a winner.

This guy isn't who I would want endorsing my campaign.

ROTFL...U all need to show Hillary a little less emotion and attention.

Who cares if this over the hill, loser endorses ole Hillary!
One loser to another!

You know, this means Jimmy Carter won't be far behind!

Venomous rhetoric and name calling is to be expected from our GOP fellow citizens. Don't you remember–during our last Dem. Presidents term. that the "new right", "the contract on America"...and the politics of deception, and destruction were born. It doesn't matter who becomes the next president (unless it's a Republican) we'll be facing 20 million little Rush Limbaugh's–and Coulter clones–everyday the Democrats control the presidency. Thats the NEW Right–divisive, bitter, and mean. As for Mondale's endorsement. He was Vice President during some pretty tough times–it's easy now in hindsight to see what could have been done about inflation, and Iran–but you should still respect leaders who were attempting to do their best under difficult times. President Bush should use them as an example–you may make wrong decisions–if you're wise, you'll adjust, adapt, overcome as needed, but under no circumstances should you lie to or marginalize the people who you serve as President or Vice-President.

This endorsement comes from a failed Democratic administration of Carter/Mondale. What a glowing sponsor from a peanut head.

To Jim Topeka:

I disagree with you completely. After Hillary and Obama showed differences in a debate on whether as president he or she would be willing to talk with our adversaries, Hillary publicly, immediately called Obama "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." That was a personal attack, the most vicious one one can imagine.
The story did not end here. Both pre-debate and post-debate, Hillary expressed a similar or identical position that was taken by Obama, thanks to our modern technology and YouTube. This is hypocrisy!

A big WHOOPIE. Carter's administration was more in shambles than is the current Bush's. Carter was a good man but just a terrible President. Mondale suffered one of the worst defeats in Presidential election history. Why does she so admire this man? Maybe he can slide her a few votes. You know, it is all about HER.

She started the negative attacks by calling Barack Obama irresponsible and naive- even though numerous foreign policy experts said he was on the mark.

Hillary=Hypocrisy

Okay people settle down...Hillary can not win the white house without minority support! No matter how far ahead of the other candidates she is, she knows she will have to walk a fine line. If Hillary says the wrong thing about OBAMA she runs the risk of losing support from the MINORITY population. The same minorities who put her husband in office twice. Be cool Hillary and make sure your spin machine doesn't go over board, otherwise I will be sitting at home on election day 2008!!!

Yeah Mondale, you matter.

There is a big difference between personnal attacks and attacking ones policies.

Clinton in my mind haa not resorted to personnal attacks. She has attacked other canidates policies. There is a difference. While Obama and Edwards may disagree with her policies many of their attacks against Clinton have been on the personnal not policy levels, shame.

If you really do desire 4 more years of a republican keep up the personnal attacks and fractor the democratic party.

Fritz Mondale is a good man. The viciousness of the Obama supporters is appalling. His supporters have convinced me not to vote for him. Hillary is the only grown up running. Sorry kids.

I'm lukewarm on Hillary, but I'm going to LOVE watching all the Hillary-haters' heads explode when she takes the White House.

Robert of Albuquerque, NM. There is real cause to be concerned if there is any chance of a Democrat winning the WH. Remember the last time the Democrats controlled Congress and the WH? It was when Jimmy Carter was Pres. Liberals like to say GW is the worst ever, but they are engaged in selective memory. Carter, by far, was the worst and he was not contained by a counterbalanced Congress. Inflation was double-digit and out of hand, we had no respect from those that mattered the most (our enemies), foreign policy was a joke, Afghanistan was invaded and Carter acted like a paraplegic (remember the consequences to our Olympic athletes?), and, of course, the Iranian hostage crisis. We can all agree spending in DC is out of hand, but add higher taxes, increased spending on additional entitlement programs and govt run health care to the mix, and we, and later generations will all suffer the consequences. How many times do Americans have to be hit the the "dumb stick"? We don't want, nor need, this woman. Hell, at least half of us don't even want to hear, nor have to look at her.

I JUST DON'T GET IT. COULD SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?

1. Why would I want to be dependent on someone else for my basic needs?

2. Why would I want the federal govt. to take even more of MY money?

3. Why would I want to call "global warming" my religion, cause it sure isn't going to get me to heaven.

5. Why would I want to give up so many freedoms which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

6. Why would I want to wait in long lines to receive inadequate health care just so people who are too stupid or lazy to get a good job can have insurance too?

7. Why would I want to live in a country that has no borders where drugs, terrorists, and felons can cross at will?

8. Why would I want to live in a country where our military is mocked, ridiculed, and disrespected?

9. Why would I want to live in a country where homosexuals, well never mind.

10. Why would I want to live in a country where a woman's right to be selfish is considered more important than killing an unborn child.

I dunno folks, I really want to be a liberal. I am disgusted with the Republicans but I just can't seem to grasp the whole liberal thought process. Can someone indoctrinate me and tell me how I am missing the big picture?

I don't think that the Democratic party is capable of nominating a winning candidate. Seeing Mondale again only reminds me how great they are for picking out wooden, unexciting, and boring candidates. Yes, Hillary would raise excitement, but not in a positive way. Here is one person who, if elected President, will not get a "honeymoon" with the American people and will have high negative ratings right from the get-go.

Clinton is not serious about a dialogue with the American people. More like a monologue with her doing all of the talking. Dealing with criticism is something she doesn't do well. In that respect, she is very much like the arrogant but dense person currently occupying the White House. If she decides to take a course of action that leads us to destruction, like George W. Bush, she won't let anything deter her from it.

Hello there

I think Edwards and Obama are just desperate...if not why are they both not being compared with each other?

Why is it always Obama vs Clinton or Edward vs Clinton

Well Hillary's people are really desperate! Dragging out old political hacks like Mundane – Mondale!

Meanwhile Barak Obama knocks on doors and tells it like it is and how its going to be when real and bi / partisan leadership blows into Washington as he becomes our next President to be proud of.

Go back up this list of blogs and check out TRM'S link – See Obama kicking it
in SC!

The winds of change are blowing...

I used to think Bill Clinton was quite politically astute, but rolling out Mondale just because Hillary had a bad week is just treating America with contempt. Just one loser after another. Wes Clarke, Mondale, who's next, Teddy Kennedy? Or maybe even the best loser of them all, Jimmy Carter. Bill, please treat the voters with more respect. Otherwise in a couple of months we will be down to "Hillary endorsing Hillary"

LOL an endorsement from Mondale, I think that do more damage then good.

Clinton should have talked to Mondale first and told him to endorse Obama so her spin machine could tear Obama apart lol

Birds of a feather....

The Carter administration was a joke, including Mondale.

He can smell his own.

Mondale is a good man, but his campaign against Gary Hart in 1984 ("where's the beef?") was anything but positive. Therefore, I think his stated reason for endorsing Clinton is just a campaign idea he was handed to say.

His endorsement is really based on the fact that he comes from the same wing of the Democratic party as the Clintons– the "same ol'" wing - that can't imagine a new paradigm.

For anyone who is commenting that Barak Obama has not been clear on what he stands for and how he will bring about change.....YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT HE HAS SAID...BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO!!! He has been CLEAR about how he intends to improve the economy, raise the minimum wage, improve energy, cut our independance on foreign oil, and change health care.......Those of you criticizing Obama are stuborn, ignorant and blind to what's going on!!! Open your mind....Obama is the right choice in '08!!

Obama '08

Just curious when CNN and the national news media is going to come out and endorse Hillary as Queen for life??

there are SO MANY negative republicans posting comments tonight. The fear shows so well in their eyes because Hillary is the one who CAN & WILL beat ANY republican.

My dog barks too.

Paid for by the Guilani campaign.

Wow!! Hillary got the Man Mondale to endorse her candidacy ! That is totally Fantastic, that must make her a sure bet to win the Presidency, I put my money down Now. Any one that has Mondale endorse them, must be a sure winner !! Absolutely Fantastic Out of this World, Totally Awesome !! Send Mondale on down here to Venezueala to endorse my Presidency.

Sincere Hugos

Who is Mondale ? Does he run a Mothball Factory in Moscow or something ?

Who is Mondale ? Is he the Loser that could not get the Hostages out of Iran? And now you want this Goofball endorsing our possible President? Hitler News Network, at it again. Did the Republicans or the Iranians pay you for this endorsement ?

What is this country coming to ? To think that someone would call our dear Queen and President a Hag. I just want to cry.

Hillary's "positive" campaign? That’s a laugh and a half…

http://www.barackoblogger.com/2007/11/hillarys-behind-scenes-slime-machine.html

"...When Obama spoke of the "politics of hope" during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he did so to contrast it with what he called the "politics of cynicism" and the "politics of anything goes," the "spin masters" and "negative ad peddlers" who would divide Americans, liberal against conservative, black against white, red state against blue.

If Obama was suggesting that one candidate couldn't or shouldn't make it
clear that he disagrees with another on matters of substance, well, he didn't
say that then, and he's not saying that now.

In an interview with the New York Times last week, Obama said he's "amused"
by "some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point
out a difference between me and her, they say, 'What happened to the politics
of hope?'" It's a "silly" question, he said. Why? Because, he said, "the notion that somehow changing [the] tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we're all holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function."

Nor is it the way the Clinton campaign functions. While Clinton herself generally
– but not always - stays above the fray, the Clinton campaign routinely reaches
out to reporters to provide information they might use to attack her Democratic
opponents. Some of it comes in public statements like the Penn memo the campaign
sent around today or the harsh, on-the-record comments Clinton spokesman Phil Singer
has made about Edwards' "flagging campaign" or Obama's "same old attack politics."

Much more of it comes in behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers
– the sorts of e-mails we get from the Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards
or Obama camps: On the "off-chance" you didn't read it, here's a copy of a Washington Post editorial calling Obama "irresponsible"; just "wanted to flag this item" in which the Huffington Post criticizes Obama on Iran; here's something Edwards just said about Iraq, and here's something contradictory he said earlier.

The last of those came in an off-the-record e-mail message we received from the
Clinton campaign late last month. We're probably breaking the rules in mentioning
it, but we figure it's fair game: If you're going to claim that the other guys are doing something wrong in calling your candidate's views into question, you don't get to pretend that you're not doing the same.

But our larger point here isn't that the Clinton campaign's "politics of hope" argument is hypocritical - although when Penn says that Clinton is "defining the 'politics of hope' while the others are abandoning them," it is. The larger point is that the Clinton campaign's argument is off the mark, offensive and, ultimately, unhelpful.

If Clinton's Democratic challengers were attacking her with the phony scandals
of the 1990s - the "politics of personal destruction" - or smearing her with the "undermining the troops" and "advocating America's defeat" crap that's the stock in trade of the GOP these days, then her campaign would be right to be asking about the "politics of hope." But the last time we checked, Obama was criticizing Clinton for her positions – or lack thereof - on issues such as Social Security, Iran and Iraq. Moreover, he has
been doing it with remarkably noninflammatory language. Neither his talk of "triangulation and poll-driven politics" nor his accusation that Clinton will "dodge
and spin" to avoid answering questions is what we'd call incendiary. Yes, Edwards' attacks on Clinton have been sharper, but they're still miles away from the Swift-boating, gay-baiting, race-card-playing hardball that any Democratic nominee can safely expect to see in 2008..."

For those of you who think that Clinton is running a clean campaign, please see the following article. She has been disseminating negative information surreptitiously to the media, encouraging them to do her dirty work for her. Like I say, those of you who support her, I highly recommend that you really get to know her before cross the others off your list. And don’t judge the other candidates for something that your candidate has been doing for weeks…
An excerpt:
“If Obama was suggesting that one candidate couldn’t or shouldn’t make it clear that he disagrees with another on matters of substance, well, he didn’t say that then, and he’s not saying that now.
In an interview with the New York Times last week, Obama said he’s “amused” by “some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point out a difference between me and her, they say, ‘What happened to the politics of hope?’” It’s a “silly” question, he said. Why? Because, he said, “the notion that somehow changing [the] tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function.”
Nor is it the way the Clinton campaign functions. While Clinton herself generally — but not always — stays above the fray, the Clinton campaign routinely reaches out to reporters to provide information they might use to attack her Democratic opponents. Some of it comes in public statements like the Penn memo the campaign sent around today or the harsh, on-the-record comments Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has made about Edwards’ “flagging campaign” or Obama’s “same old attack politics.”
Much more of it comes in behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers — the sorts of e-mails we get from the Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards or Obama camps: On the “off-chance” you didn’t read it, here’s a copy of a Washington Post editorial calling Obama “irresponsible”; just “wanted to flag this item” in which the Huffington Post criticizes Obama on Iran; here’s something Edwards just said about Iraq, and here’s something contradictory he said earlier.
The last of those came in an off-the-record e-mail message we received from the Clinton campaign late last month. We’re probably breaking the rules in mentioning it, but we figure it’s fair game: If you’re going to claim that the other guys are doing something wrong in calling your candidate’s views into question, you don’t get to pretend that you’re not doing the same. ”

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/30/hope/ index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

CNN: what's with all the Hilary blogs dominating here? Are you trying to skew the numbers by feeding into the "cult of celebrity". People are very impressionable.

My oh My oh My oh My, how could you be so heartless to call our dear Queen and future President a hag. Have you lost your American Citizenship, and sense of duty or something ?

Wasn't Mondale in office when we had a Gas Crisis? Wasn't he in office when we had a recession? Wasn't he in office when our Embassy was taken over in Iran? Wasn't he in office when the Soviet Union invaded Afganistan? Wasn't he in office when the Communists took over Nicarauga? Wasn't he in office when taxes and the Prime Rate were at an all time high? Didn't he lose the election in the largest margin ever? Didn't he want to stop NASA from going to the Moon?

Does he matter anymore? Did he ever?

Please be more respectable to our dear Queen, and do not call her a hag. How unthoughtful and classless of you. She is such Queen, dedicated to serving this great country of the United States of America, and how shameful for you to call our new President a hag. It saddens me much that a person of the population of the United States of America would refer to our dear Queen, Leader, and future President, a hag. My oh my.

People must make a distinction between "personal attacks" and the facts - there is a difference.

It is interesting how endorsements such as Walter Mondale's comes with attachés claiming that somehow questioning Hillary Clinton's position constitutes a personal attack. This is complete nonsense to most educated voters.

Every candidate must realize he or she will be subject to political criticism by fellow colleagues, especially in a White House presidential bid. Have we outsourced critical thinking to not ask questions?

In my view, candidates should be contested (vigorously) on matters involving leadership traits such as honesty, integrity, and sound judgment. Thus allowing voters to make their own determination on candidate compatibility.

The fact that Hillary is being challenged should not be a surprise to anyone. This is because of her poor voting record and flip-flopping which does not resonate well with Democrat voters.

Many would consider Hillary's support for illegals to obtain driver's licenses, free social services, and heath care benefits nothing short of “amnesty”.

Also, how could we forget other issues such as the Iraq war vote, continued war funding, Patriot Act, NAFTA (NAU), Iran Resolution, The National Archive documents, Sandy Berger advising Hillary's campaign, and her soliciting campaign contributers from Norman Hsu, and Peter F Paul.

Vote wisely, stay informed.

Well Said!! I Hope People Take Heed To What Mr Ex VP Mondale Said And Wake Up ...She is The one To Win The Race ..The United States Need The Clintons Back In The White House,,Great Memories Compared To How We Are Living Now And Edwards And Obama Are To Inexperienced To Lead This Country

Hillary, you really need to explain Mr. Mondale's Distinction and Passion.

"Running and leading this country is tough business". How would Mondale know, it doesn't appear that is what they were doing when he was in office. So what if it is, dont the Candidates already know that? Or are they auditioning for a new comedy show ?

It is 83 degrees in Tehran at this hour. Oh, yes, I thought that would be as interesting a news as Mondaly endorsing anyone.

Mondale would endorse Hugo Chavez, if it meant getting his name in the papers. I think Carter Endorses McCain for Pres and Ahmoudinegad for vice president.

Bad omen for Hillary. Mondale, who suffered one of the historical losses and became the blueprint for all the clone candidates we have suffered through and keep losing with. and Hillary is another Mondale style cut out in the long line with dukakis and Kerry, ect.
it's time for us to do some serious soul searching over why we keep nominating these people and I hope we can start nominating good candidates.
I think we need to start by nominating Obama.

This is making me sick... How can people be so mean on the basis of a point of view. Its true, rational people and respectful people are being turned away by all this harsh and hateful comments. You do not neet to support your candidate by debasing someone in such a matter, that only removes honesty from their support base. Get a grip and be repsectful, we should be ashamed of our violent political nature not be proud of it.

People must make a distinction between “personal attacks” and the facts - there is a difference.

It is interesting how endorsements such as Walter Mondale's comes with attachés claiming somehow that questioning Hillary Clinton's position constitutes a personal attack. This is complete nonsense to most educated voters.

Every candidate must realize he or she will be subject to political criticism by fellow colleagues, especially in a White House presidential bid. Have we outsourced critical thinking to not ask questions?

In my view, candidates should be contested (vigorously) on matters involving leadership traits such as honesty, integrity, and sound judgment. Thus allowing voters to make their own determination on candidate compatibility.

The fact that Hillary is being challenged should not be a surprise to anyone. This is because of her poor voting record and flip-flopping which does not resonate well with most Democrat voters.

Many would consider Hillary's support for illegals to obtain driver's licenses, free social services, and heath care benefits nothing short of “amnesty”.

Also, how could we forget other issues such as - the Iraq war vote, continued war funding, Patriot Act, NAFTA (NAU), Iran Resolution, The National Archive documents, Sandy Berger advising Hillary's campaign, and her soliciting campaign contributers from Norman Hsu, and Peter F Paul.

Vote wisely, stay informed.

I am glad that all the Hillary Clinton bashers are having their time here with the blogs.
Get it out of your system.
There is a reason why she is ahead in national polls.
The majority of Democrats, Independents and some Republicans strongly feel that she is the best of the lot.
All you bashers, as creative as you write, are still in the minority.
Hillary Clinton is not a light-weight. She has been around the block several times and has survived all kinds of trash thrown at her for years. She has not come this far only to fail, but rather succeed.
We need to give her a fair chance for the nomination.

I wasn't sure about Hillary but now that she has the endorsement of Fritz Mondale I'm confident that she's the best democrat candidate there is. With the support of McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Kerry, Hillary is destined for greatness!

Hillary, quit hanging around Edwards. His dumbness is wearing off on you. Run your own campaign and quit including these losers. You don't need them. Get William Jefferson campaigning for you, and leave the goofballs in moth balls. Go Hillary, but Drop the idiots.

what is that 'positive vision for change'?

mondale? wasn't he the assistant in charge of tennis court scheduling for jimmy carter?

Hey Andy from Seattle,

I read the article, but its hard to accept the characterization that the Clinton's have run a positive campaign. In fact - its been quite dirty, but all behind the scenes. They have been feeding the press and bloggers negative stories about Obama and Edwards. They have used proxies to smear rather than through the dirt themselves. Here are some articles that will point this out to you - if you care to know the truth:

CLINTON CAMPAIGN PUSHED THE McCLURKIN STORY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502421_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter

"The Clinton campaign, many journalists say, is the fastest and most aggressive at dealing with blogs. Last week, Clinton aides sent journalists a Huffington Post column criticizing her major Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for a planned appearance with a gospel singer who is hostile to gays. Time blogger Ana Marie Cox posted the item - but added that Clinton had been endorsed by a minister who preaches against homosexuality. The Clinton camp quickly obtained a correction saying that the minister had praised Clinton but not endorsed her."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007 13:36 EST
The politics of hope
We got an e-mail today from one of Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesmen. It said that we "might want to check out Hillary Hub this morning," and it provided a link to make it easy for us to do so.

What we found there: a banner that says "The Politics of Hope," video clips of Barack Obama and John Edwards talking about "the politics of hope," and four newspaper and wire service headlines about how Obama and Edwards are going after Clinton.

The implication? Attacking the views of another Democratic candidate means either that you've turned your back on the "politics of hope" or that you never really believed in the idea in the first place.

But don't just take our word for it. As we began to write this post, we received another e-mail message from the Clinton campaign. This one, a memo to "interested parties" from Clinton strategist Mark Penn, accuses Edwards and Obama of having "abandoned" the "politics of hope" by declaring that they're "going to go negative" on the Democratic front-runner.

Here's our memo in response: Stop.

When Obama spoke of the "politics of hope" during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he did so to contrast it with what he called the "politics of cynicism" and the "politics of anything goes," the "spin masters" and "negative ad peddlers" who would divide Americans, liberal against conservative, black against white, red state against blue.

If Obama was suggesting that one candidate couldn't or shouldn't make it clear that he disagrees with another on matters of substance, well, he didn't say that then, and he's not saying that now.

In an interview with the New York Times last week, Obama said he's "amused" by "some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point out a difference between me and her, they say, 'What happened to the politics of hope?'" It's a "silly" question, he said. Why? Because, he said, "the notion that somehow changing [the] tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we're all holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function."

Nor is it the way the Clinton campaign functions. While Clinton herself generally - but not always - stays above the fray, the Clinton campaign routinely reaches out to reporters to provide information they might use to attack her Democratic opponents. Some of it comes in public statements like the Penn memo the campaign sent around today or the harsh, on-the-record comments Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has made about Edwards' "flagging campaign" or Obama's "same old attack politics."

Much more of it comes in behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers - the sorts of e-mails we get from the Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards or Obama camps: On the "off-chance" you didn't read it, here's a copy of a Washington Post editorial calling Obama "irresponsible"; just "wanted to flag this item" in which the Huffington Post criticizes Obama on Iran; here's something Edwards just said about Iraq, and here's something contradictory he said earlier.

The last of those came in an off-the-record e-mail message we received from the Clinton campaign late last month. We're probably breaking the rules in mentioning it, but we figure it's fair game: If you're going to claim that the other guys are doing something wrong in calling your candidate's views into question, you don't get to pretend that you're not doing the same.

But our larger point here isn't that the Clinton campaign's "politics of hope" argument is hypocritical - although when Penn says that Clinton is "defining the 'politics of hope' while the others are abandoning them," it is. The larger point is that the Clinton campaign's argument is off the mark, offensive and, ultimately, unhelpful.

If Clinton's Democratic challengers were attacking her with the phony scandals of the 1990s - the "politics of personal destruction" - or smearing her with the "undermining the troops" and "advocating America's defeat" crap that's the stock in trade of the GOP these days, then her campaign would be right to be asking about the "politics of hope." But the last time we checked, Obama was criticizing Clinton for her positions - or lack thereof - on issues such as Social Security, Iran and Iraq. Moreover, he has been doing it with remarkably noninflammatory language. Neither his talk of "triangulation and poll-driven politics" nor his accusation that Clinton will "dodge and spin" to avoid answering questions is what we'd call incendiary. Yes, Edwards' attacks on Clinton have been sharper, but they're still miles away from the Swift-boating, gay-baiting, race-card-playing hardball that any Democratic nominee can safely expect to see in 2008.

More to the point, isn't this exactly the sort of debate that candidates and their party ought to be having along the road to the White House? Since 9/11, Democrats and their political allies have spent six long years on the receiving end of lectures about why they can't say what needs to be said. Bill Maher's criticisms of the president draw a watch-what-you-say warning from the White House; Tom Daschle's concern about the president's rush to war in Iraq leads the Republican speaker of the House to accuse him of coming "mighty close" to providing "comfort to our adversaries"; the president's chief political advisor says Dick Durbin's comments about Guantánamo have put our troops "in even greater danger" than they were before - even after Durbin apologizes for saying what he said. Then Congressional Republicans - with some help from too many Democrats - turn a chance to debate America's role in Iraq into an opportunity to condemn MoveOn.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs now is somebody else - let alone one of its own - suggesting that open debate is somehow wrong. Clinton seemed to understand that point perfectly well when she announced her candidacy back in January. "Let's talk, let's chat," she said then. "Let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine, because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, we do. But a one-sided conversation is a one-sided conversation, no matter who's doing the talking. Elections are necessarily choices among competing candidates and competing visions. If Clinton can run her campaign without ever mentioning why she thinks she's better than her opponents, more power to her. But mere mortals can't do that, and they shouldn't have to. If Clinton was serious about having a "dialogue" - if part of her own hope for America is that we'll have a more open society than the one in which we've lived for the past six years - then it's high time for her campaign to stop trying to shame its opponents into silence. Engage with the criticisms or ignore them; just don't argue that it's wrong to raise them in the first place.

― Tim Grieve

Wow an endorsement from Walter Mondale. That just about assures victory for Shrillary. Of course Obama has Ben Affleck's backing so that is pretty strong too.

Mondale supports Clinton! This is surprising and newsworthy and we should take notice ?? Do better CNN!

Positively pandering, definitely duplicitous, ultimately unelectable.

Obama's decision to go on the attack is only going to hurt his campaign. I hope he recognizes this quickly and corrects course. It hurts his credibility that he has taken a 180 from his previous position, and into the politics of "negative campaigning"

Positive? Hillary? Isn't she regularly being negative towards the present administration's record and policies? She's one of the most divisive candidates; isn't that the opposite of "positive?"

I really agree with Mondale. Mondale is a man of integrity and he has been a hard working Democratic politician. Hillary is running a positive campaign focused on what she wants to do for the country. If someone wants to change things in Washington and change the tone of politics they have to start with how they run their own campaigns. Walking the talk. That's why I think that Obama's and Edward's new strategy is wrong.

Old whitemen tricks, ya, wake up people and see for yourself......Obama was the clear winner for the last debate. Now you can not see ticker flashing his pictures here like they do on clintons....Edward did a pretty good job too...I wonder what is fair reporting in this country!

Good 4 Hillary, she was able to find a useless American living off tax payer dollars and getting free medical care and have him endorse her campaign.

At least she has stopped laughing in the faces of those who asked her questions that made her think.

Come on Hillary, I was going to vote for you, but you are getting dumber by the day. I think you been around Ewards too much.

Let's see, the last 4 of 5 stories on the CNN political ticker are about Hillary Clinton.

Can't imagine why she is winning in national polls.

You all should at least pretend to cover other people

Please explain the distinction and passion part, please.

So what exactly did Mondale Endorse ? More campaign cash from the Chinese and Iranians ?

New England beat the Colts today. At least something interesting happened.

One plus One is Two Hillary. But One Loser Mondale and One Winner Clinton equals Zero Votes. Run your own campaign and leave the Goofballs out of the picture and you will do better. Hey maybe Edwards will Endorse you, never know, some of the odd things he says.

Only the Spin Master Shrillary would call this positive. It really shows how out of touch she is to think anybody else would think it is positive. Who is this has been anyway? I was around in the 70's I guess I didn't realize Carter had a VP. He must have made an incredible impression! did anybody else remember him before his name was mentioned?
Nice to know a future has been is associating with a never was.

So Hillary, is Mondale one of the losers, you plan to send to the foreign dignitaries? I suppose you plan to send Mondale to Iran ?

If the men can't do it Hillary can, she'll woop rudy's ass and kick Mitt into the street, cause the only thing they have over this battle axe is a combines three extra inches of .......

You get the picture,

The problem is George Bush has dropped the bar so low as President, that a woman with no experience running anything is the best candidate available.

This country is really heading full steam into the crapper!!!!

Read the article without hate. Mondale endorsed Clinton for running a positive campaign. Listen to Obama and Edwards and make the difference. These guys trashed everything in their desperation to gain attention. Obama is selling his famous 'politics of hope' that promises .. what does it promise? and Edwards.. I am not even sure this guy should still be in the race.

HOW CAN MONDALE ENDORSE SOMEONE? HE DIDN'T DO CRAP WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAkGr_Rrdn0&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/

I urge tou watch the speech Obama gave yesterday in South Carolina. You'll see the difference between Obama and Sen. Clinton. Its as striking as seeing the difference between Reagan and Mondale in their ability to inspire and motivate voters.

I remember him to mondale bumper sticker on the family car.he's well respected Walter.running against the republican reagan.and in this time alott of people lost there jobs to repbubs,who couldnt do a very good job at the city level,keeping are roads cleared,of snow ice, trees,swept,trash gone,it went to being dirty USA City's republicans.they dont care only about themselves,and money.

Stay positive, Hillary! We are all rooting for you! (The negative smear campaigns of your opponents are only hurting their numbers, and helping yours!!)

Who cares what this loser Mondale thinks. The hag is still simply not electable.

Of course Mondale would endorse Clinton. They're two of the only candidates in the history of American politics to run on a platform of raising taxes. I'm sure Hillary's thrilled to get the endorsement of some old, irrelevant politician who lost his bid for the presidency in the biggest landslide since George Washington was voted in.

Positive? Wao, she did manage to fool you too. But then it depends on when you listened to her
She hasnt always called other candidates naive and irresponsible before quietly squeezing in their position.

Any campaign could be called positive, in comparison to Mondales. Endorsement of Mondale, means less votes for Clinton

Last I knew "Zero" was neither positive or negative. So when you say "zero" it is easy to be called not negative. Real Profound support Mr. Mondale. By the way what have you been up to, counting Moth Balls ? How is your endorsement supposed to help Hillary's campaign ?

Nothing like a recommendation from a loser to bring support from the masses who are unable to think for themselves

Let us see now, Hillary calls support from Mondaly a good thing ? Apparently she is not then qualifed to be President of the USA. Plus, wasn't it Carter and Mondaly that were so successful with Iran. Hey this is a really classy campaign,and think we got 13 months to go. Perhaps we have Seinfeld #2 coming up on the Commedy Series.

That's getting really funny.
It was Sen. Clinton who bashed Sen. Obama "naive and unexperienced" when he insisted on direct diplomacy with Iran.
It was in all papers, Mr. Mondale. How did you miss that?

So... Hillary gets the prestigious Mondale endorsement. Any word from Dukakis?

Has Wally been watching the same campaign we have?

As far as a ringing endorsement from someone who has been in the White House, does anyone remember the 70's and the 'leadership' we suffered through then?

Yes Mondale was soundly defeated in a landslide victory by Ronnie Reagan, and there is a good reason for that: MONDALE IS NOT IN TOUCH WITH REALITY.

WOW, a dud, who worked for a dud, endorsing a dud... thats great...

http://democratequalssocialist.wordpress.com/

Hey Sue in Michigan. What a paranoid crock of crap you are spewing. Actually, Bush Sr. is paying the Democraps a compliment. He is simply saying, hold on everybody, the democraps are not really as stupid as they look, there are enough thinkers in there to derail this coronation.

as if she hasnt attack other candidates

she called barak obama "irresponsible and naive" back in i think july"

So Mondale was a vice president, I didn't see that before. Well, it really doesn't matter because he is endorsing the wrong candidate. Putting sanctions on other countries is just about the same as war.

One good loser endorses another!

Hillarity Clinton praised for running a positive campaign!!! What an endorsement coming from such a political giant as Wally (For one brief shining moment I was important) Mondale. Next Hillarity will have Jimmy (buy me another award) Carter on the campaign trail with her.......

I hope she'll still be positive when Billy starts handing out cigars....

Positive campaign is Obama's! She is a thief she is stealing everything from slogan 'change' 'judgement to lead"turn the page' and other strategic plans like universal healthcare to everyone.
she is a copycat......