American’s Want Change, Not Necessarily Democrats

This is a great Article. The only concern is that several people I have talked to think that the article means that the majority of the country is going to vote Democrat and that this article is saying that Republicans are going to vote Democrat in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

The article points out several important issues in the upcoming elections and does seem to prod the reader into thinking Republicans are bad…. However it is not that people necessarily support Democratic change in the election. I myself, support change from the current path the Bush Administration is taking. I would like to see the Bush Administration return to the path it was taking initially during his first term. He brought the country together, forced the Democrats to become bi-partisan for those four years, achieved economic improvements for us middle class folks. When he switched and caved into Democratic pressure, he faltered.

Read each of the stats and think about what they really mean. Yes change,  

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington PostABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll — matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants — that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public’s sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush’s approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush’s job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. “I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country,” said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. “While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country.”

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush’s numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress’s performance is lower than the president’s rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year’s midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going “in the direction Bush has been taking us,” and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

“We’re in a terrible mess,” said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. “The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks.”

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, “It just seems that after these eight years most people think there’s got to be a change, and I’m with them.”

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: “If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn’t vote for him. The last year I think he’s dropped something, and I’m not sure what it is.”

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. “Here’s the problem with this country,” he said. “Just because it’s a Republican idea, Democrats don’t like it, and because it’s a Democratic idea, Republicans don’t like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that.”

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush’s policies and the direction of the country. “I’m pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do,” he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: “I think we’ll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do.”

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election’s most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush’s presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services — long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president’s party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, “It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats.” One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time “to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee’s candidacy and agenda.”

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. “The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration,” said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist. But he added that “it’s not a clear path” to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. “A year from now, it’s not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it’s going to be a choice between two candidates,” he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Dem On Dem Attacks – With Friends Like This Who Needs Republicans

Hillary’s camp crying over Democrat on Democrat attacks. During the latest Democratic Debate, Hillary avoided answering questions, with coaching from Bill she does a wonderful job at dodgeball, flip flopped on issues during the debate and made herself look like a complete asshat. Her opponents, dug in deep and would not back off. Now that the debate is over, she is answering those questions, the ones she could not answer while under fire. Hmmm… Imaging if there was a real crisis she had to respond to with limited time to make a decision. No Imagine if she were President of the United States and we were under attack from Terrorists, maybe terrorists flying planes into buildings. Now Imagine her response. Is this what you want to lead our country? I hope your answer is no.

Hillary, take a bit of advise, take a position on the various issues you are confronted with, support those positions and act upon them. The people will have more respect for you than if you whine about how the “boys” picked on you…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign made a new fundraising pitch on Thursday, looking to somehow capitalize on the flak she’s taking from her Democratic opponents over her performance at a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

In a letter circulated by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign announced that the presidential race has “entered a new phase.”

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary,” the letter said. It then asked readers for a campaign contribution.

The missive came as Clinton’s opponents continued to take shots at the frontrunner over her seeming double talk at the debate. Most of the criticism has come in response to Clinton’s confusing answer regarding her position on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a stance she has since tried to clarify. That issue is not necessarily a divisive topic for Democrats, but rather the response is indicative of what opponents say is Clinton’s fatal flaw.

The campaign for John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was especially critical Tuesday night, released a statement Thursday saying Clinton is engaging in the “politics of parsing.”

“All the distractions in the world won’t undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honesty and directly while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues,” the statement said. “We understand that the Clinton campaign isn’t happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?”

Clinton has tried to clear the air of confusion, saying late Wednesday that she supports Spitzer’s plan.

Spitzer’s plan, which he has retooled in the face of heavy criticism, would grant identification on a three-tier basis, decreasing with the level of proper documentation. Undocumented, illegal immigrants would receive a license only to be used for driving, and be inscribed “not for federal purposes,” meaning it couldn’t be used to board flights or cross borders.

“Senator Clinton broadly supports measures like the ones being advocated by Governor Spitzer, but there are details that still need to be worked out,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Wednesday.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administrations failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he added.

During the debate Tuesday night, Clinton offered support for Spitzer, saying he was trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” and noted millions of illegal immigrants are in New York at any one time. They should be able to have identification if they’re in an auto accident, for instance, she said.

When all seven of the candidates were asked whether they agree that illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses, only Sen. Christopher Dodd said he disagreed. He then pressed Clinton on the issue and argued against the plan, saying: “A license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.”

Clinton responded: “Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Dodd then quickly interrupted Clinton before she could finish, seizing on the apparent discrepancy. Moderator Tim Russert then tried to elicit an answer on whether she supported the plan or not, but she avoided offering specific support for the plan.

Then Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, both attorneys like Clinton, took turns dicing her statement.

“Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago,” Edwards said.

“I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” Obama said.

Clinton’s apparent indecision also made fodder for Republicans on the campaign trail.

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a page out of President Bush’s campaign playbook, playing on a phrase used against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004.

Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn’t sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer,” Giuliani said. “She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. … What they didn’t know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likened her support for driver’s licenses to tolerance of illegals in the workforce and those who benefit from city services.

“What that does is it communicates to people coming to the country illegally that with a wink and a nod it is alright. This sanctuary state of mind seems to permeate many liberals that they are going to have sanctuary cities, we are going to have sanctuary driver’s licenses, sanctuary tuition discounts for children of illegal aliens, and that sanctuary state of mind has contributed to millions of people coming here illegally, and it has to stop,” Romney said.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said Clinton’s response was “another example of (her) dodging hard issues.” He later suggested that Clinton’s lack of clarity in her debate answers raises questions about her ability to handle diplomacy and foreign policy.

“When our worst enemy sits down at the negotiating table and looks across the table … how much can they get away with, how much of what they’re hearing is really true? Are they going to mean what is said on the other side of the table? The question is, ‘Who do we want on the other side of that table facing them?”‘ he told a crowd of GOP donors in Las Vegas.

And the Republican National Committee issued its own talking points memo, pointing to statements it said show that “Hillary’s stance on illegal immigration reforms remains vague and undefined.”

Meanwhile, the controversy over Spitzer’s plan is not going away any time soon. On Thursday, 32 Republican New York Assembly members filed a lawsuit against Spitzer, seeking to quash the license plan.

The suit states the plan violates the section of New York law that says the Department of Motor Vehicles must require a Social Security number before issuing a driver’s license. Among the concerns about the plan is that it will giving illegal immigrants the right to get ID that they could use to vote, to support terror activities or buy weapons.

“The basis of the suit is the governor’s proposal is unlawful,” said Josh Fitzpatrick, spokesman for New York Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco, who is leading the effort against Spitzer.

Fitzpatrick said the assembly members resorted to court action after a move to amend the governor’s plan failed in special session. He said Clinton’s response to Spitzer’s plan during the debate Tuesday “raised awareness” about the issue but did not by itself prompt the lawsuit.

“It’s a battle that’s been raging for about six weeks now,” he said.

Nonetheless, Tedisco bashed Clinton in a statement Wednesday, calling her a flip-flopper and comparing her to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, whose positions were mocked by opponents as malleable.

Amid the renewed national attention, Spitzer stood by his plan Thursday.

“I have a very serious obligation. That’s to improve the security of the state, and that’s what we’re doing,” the governor said.

FOX News’ Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Obama “No Show” Contradicts Himself in Criticism of Clinton Vote

Obama is now critisizing Hillary on her vote to dub the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He claims this gives Bush a blank check to attack Iran. Now had Obama been present in the Senate that day he could have cast a vote against, however all he can say is that had he been there he would of. Where was Obama on such a critical vote, by critical I am refering to his use of this as cannon fodder against Hillary. Had this been such an important vote to him he would not have been too busy campaigning, he would have been doing his job that he is paid to do.

Now I have no love for Hillary, however I am developing an even nastier taste for Obama’s politics… He has no right to say anything about Hillary’s voting practice unless he participates in the same votes.

Is this really the man that should be our next President, where will he be when important decision need to be made?

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday criticized a recent vote by Democratic presidential rival Sen. Hillary Clinton as helping to give President Bush a “blank check” to take military action against Iran.

art.obama.cnn.jpg

¨Sen. Barack Obama says Sen. Hillary Clinton has shown “flawed” judgment.

“We know in the past that the president has used some of the flimsiest excuses to try to move his agenda regardless of what Congress says,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Last month, Clinton voted to support a resolution declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite part of the Iranian military, a foreign terrorist group. (The nonbinding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act passed by a 76-22 vote.)

Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn’t because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. “This is a problem” related to running for president, he said.

Obama said Clinton also had shown “flawed” judgment during the vote to authorize the Iraq war five years ago.

“We know that there was embodied in this legislation, or this resolution sent to the Senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran,” Obama said. “Now if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don’t want to repeat that mistake.”

Clinton on Thursday defended her vote on the resolution during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, saying “what I voted on was a nonbinding resolution. It’s not an amendment. It’s not a law.”

While Clinton was campaigning Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, an audience member at a town hall-style meeting pressed her on why she voted for the Iran measure and asked why she hadn’t learned from past “mistakes.” Calling “the premise of the question” wrong, the senator from New York argued the resolution calls for the terrorist label so that sanctions can be imposed.

The sanctions, Clinton said, will in turn “send a clear message to the leadership” and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.

Earlier this month, Clinton also co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, that would prohibit military operations against Iran without congressional approval.

Obama’s comments came on the fifth anniversary of the 77-23 Senate vote that authorized the president to use force against Iraq. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against the resolution authorizing force at the time.

Clinton’s 2002 vote shows a clear difference in judgment between the two of them, Obama said. Video Watch as Obama questions Clinton’s judgment »

“I don’t think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment and it speaks to my judgment,” Obama said. “It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward.

“I think her judgment was flawed on this issue.”

Obama said he also will step up efforts to clarify his differences with Clinton, whom many political observers view as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

“There’s no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign,” Obama said. “The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I’ve been and what I am about.

“In this next phase, we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates, and that reflects on my judgment.”

Another leading Democratic candidate, John Edwards, also voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq while he was then a senator from North Carolina. He later called his vote a mistake.

In a veiled swipe at Clinton, Obama also suggested he could better unite the country and offer “something new, as opposed to looking backward and simply duplicating some of the politics that we’ve become so accustomed to, that frankly the American people are sick of.”

Obama would not say whether he would consider Clinton as his running mate should he become the Democratic Party’s nominee.

“I think Sen. Clinton is a very capable person,” he said. “Right now, my goal is to make sure I am the nominee, and she is still the senator from New York.”

It’s Good To Be The King – Democratic Closet Candidates

Hillary, Obama and Edwards have some interesting views on Gay Marraige and teaching 6 year old children about it. This question was related to if the candidates would feel comfortable with their children being read “King & King” in second grade.

A fairy tale about two princes falling in love sparked a backlash — and a lawsuit — against a teacher and a school last year when it was read to a second-grade class in Massachusetts.

But the three frontrunners in the Democratic presidential race suggested Wednesday night at their debate in New Hampshire that they’d support reading the controversial book to children as part of a school curriculum.

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they’d be comfortable having the story — called “King & King” — read to their children in school

Edwards thinks it is ok to teach to 6 year olds so that they can grow up and NOT understand why he is against it.  He also does not want to influence his children on the subject. Hello John, isn’t that what parents are suppose to do. Influence their children. This is a shining example of why morales and values have disappeared from most of the kids today. Don’t forget, John is not Gay, nor was the other John, his running mate… what was his name , oh yeah Kerry. And on top of it, he did not even know what he had actually responded to… Note the Blue highlight.

Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer — a resounding and instant “yes, absolutely” — although he added that it “might be a little tough” for second-graders.

 

“I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives,” Edwards said. “I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who’s 9, and Jack, who’s 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who’s 25, has reached — which is, she doesn’t understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage.”

The 2004 vice presidential candidate and former North Carolina senator said he doesn’t want to influence his kids’ opinions about the issue.

“I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children,” he said. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Obama thinks it is a ok to teach to 6 year olds, they are old enough to understand it. What are you talking about feeding the American people fear and conflict and division? Obama are you saying that by not teaching second graders about gay marraige we are teaching them fear? What did you smoke before this.

Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.

Obama told Russert that his sentiments are similar to those of Edwards, and, when asked whether he’d sat down to talk about same-sex marriage with his young daughters, he replied that his wife had.

“The fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples,” the Illinois senator told the debate. “One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different. …. One of the things I think the next president has to do is stop fanning people’s fears. If we spend all our time feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they become fearful and conflicted and divided.”

Hillary thinks it should be the parents responsibility, but does not actually say it should not be taught in school. Remember she is not a lesbian…

Clinton said she believes it’s up to parents to decide how to handle such topics, but added that it’s important to teach kids about the “many differences that are in the world.”

Clinton said she respects the viewpoints of Obama and Edwards, but she sidestepped the question of whether she’d be comfortable having a storybook like “King & King” read to her own child at that age.

“With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion,” Clinton said. “Obviously, it is better to try to … help your children understand the many differences that are in the world. … And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.”

Now remember these guys and Hillary oppose gay marraige…

/**/

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and, as Russert pointed out Wednesday, most of the Democratic candidates have said they oppose it. But though they don’t back the legislation, they apparently think it’s OK to teach elementary-school students about gay marriage.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is vying for the Republican nomination for president, weighed in afterward with a statement accusing the Democratic candidates of being “out of touch” with America.

“Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade,” Romney said in the statement. “This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers. We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children. Change in Washington requires Democrats with the courage to stand up to their ultra liberal base and do what’s right for our children.”

Some Lexington, Mass., parents were livid that a Joseph Estabrook Elementary School teacher read “King & King” to their second-grade children in class.

The Dutch tale, which has been translated into English, is about a prince whose mother pressures him to find a princess but who ends up falling in love with and marrying the brother of one of the prospective brides instead.

Last year, a judge dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by two sets of parents of students in the class who objected to the introduction of homosexual themes to their 7-year-olds without alerting them first, on the grounds that it was a violation of the state’s sex-education parental notification clause.

State law requires teaching about gay marraige? Something is wrong when a law requires that gay marraige be taught in public school, when you cannot event teach about G”d in public school and there are those that want ban the  Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word G”d in it. Wake up America!

School officials stood by their decision to teach about different kinds of marriage and said that Massachusetts law requires them to do so.

 

Hillary, Edwards and Obama Agree They Cannot Commit to a Troop Withdrawal Time Table

Democrates have made more than a u-turn in their view on withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Last year they promised if they gain control of Congress they would force a pull out. At the beginning of the campaign season, the one the democrats started early, they made that one of their biggest issues, by trying to force Bush into setting a time table.

Now the leading candidates, the onese most likely to be elected, have done a 720 and are chasing their tails. The trailers, claim to be able to with draw troops, because they know it will get them some vote… maybe… Not that they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination to run for President.

At least Bush has been realistic all along and not set a time table, because he knows it is not a feasibility.

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

art.dem.debate.ap.jpg

The candidates have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Progressive Presidential Candidates Vote to Keep Funding from MoveOn

The Democratic Presidential Cadidates in the Senate voted to keep Moveon.org as a major fund raiser. Either afraid of a bad media PR campaign by Moveon or a loss of funds, they decided to bend to the will of MoveOn.

As Bush put the American people on notice that the Democrates fear wrath of MoveOn more than the back lash from US Military, the Senate Republicans push to have the Dems go on record, and that they did.

What is most striking in this is that these candidates have just proven they will listen to a fanatical group with limited or not access to intel, over a military commander, with access to classified information, information in the field and access to the theater of operations. Hmmmm make you wonder which Democrate to vote for…. Oh yea, none of them

 The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.

The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.

Click here to see how your senators voted.

Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama were absent from the vote, though Obama had voted 20 minutes earlier on a Democratic effort to circumvent the amendment. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the measure.

The amendment did not specifically name MoveOn.org, but expressed “the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.”

But supporters made clear the measure was about MoveOn, and was aimed at giving senators “a chance to distance themselves from the notion that some group has them on a leash, like a puppet on a string.”

“Who would have ever expected anybody to go after a general in the field at a time of war, launch a smear campaign against a man we’ve entrusted with our mission in Iraq?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked on the Senate floor. “Any group that does this sort of thing ought to be condemned. Let’s take sides. General Petraeus or MoveOn.org. Which one are we going to believe? Which one are we going to condemn?”

Partisans also took the opportunity to slam Clinton and Obama for not voting on the amendment.

“Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org. If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a commander in chief?” said Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan.

“Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief,” said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In response to Senate passage of the amendment, MoveOn officials said the group was going to buy TV ad time to attack McConnell, R-Ky., and other senators who voted against a measure offered a day earlier by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb to require troops to have equal down time at home as they have deployed in war zones. The measure failed.

“No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can’t do what most Americans want — vote to end this war,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

Over in the House, one Republican leader asked when that chamber will take up similar legislation. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he had no intention of bringing up the GOP’s resolution.

“Denouncing this unconscionable assault on Gen. Petraeus integrity in a bipartisan manner would signal to the American people that these tactics have no place in our political discourse. True leadership means standing up for whats right — now is the time for Democrats in the House to demonstrate the capacity for that leadership,” Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, responded in a statement.

The Senate vote followed a statement by Bush during a press conference at the White House in which he argued that Democrats are more concerned about riling MoveOn than about riling the U.S. military.

“I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad, and that leads me to come to this kind of conclusion: That most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org — are more afraid of irritating them — than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal,” the president said.

“And (it’s) one thing to attack me. It’s another thing to attack somebody like Gen. Petraeus,” Bush said.

Pariser responded to the president, saying Bush lied about the cause for war in Iraq.

“What’s disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war,” Pariser said. “The president has no credibility on Iraq: he lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war. … Right now, there are about 168,000 American soldiers in Iraq, caught in the crossfire of that country’s unwinnable civil war, and the president has betrayed their trust and the trust of the American people.”

John Edwards Buying Al Gore’s Left Over Carbon Credits

Ed Grubman has pics of Edwards getting into his SUV after telling a group of machinists they should sacrafice their SUVs.

Here we go with the Al Gore Carbon Credit crap. Another words if you are rich you are exempt because you will buy carbon credit, what a load of crap.

• My Little Pony John Edwards A Hypocrate? Noooo!

While speaking to the Machinists Union in Florida on Tuesday he says:

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”

Now as Dumbocrats/Liberals/Hypocrates normally do they mean do as I say not as I do…

This is Edwards getting into his SUV… In Iowa Hillary rode around in an 18-Wheeler. Obama an RV, and Edwards in a Cadillac SRX Crossover which gets just 15 MPG.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz says they buy carbon offsets for the vehicles, and adds:
“John Edwards believes that all Americans need to be patriotic about something other than war, and that means conserving at home, at work, and in the cars they drive. And that includes the Edwards family. They drive a hybrid Ford Escape, but they also still own a Chrysler Pacifica – which they use less often. He is reducing his own impact on global warming by driving a hybrid, building an energy-efficient home, and subsidizing renewable energy to offset the carbon emissions of his home, vehicles, and his campaign.”

All of this of course happens when he’s not flying around the US in a private jet which has been proven to be far worse than driving even the least fuel efficient car.

In a Boston Herald article in 2004 they really nailed Flipper Kerry for his hypocracy…

Now we’ve truly heard it all. Rising gas prices are the latest John Kerry [related, bio] campaign theme, so naturally the senator was asked this week about his personal vehicle usage.

Kerry insisted, “I don’t own an SUV.”

When pressed about a Chevrolet Suburban, the mother of all SUVs, kept at the Heinz Kerry abode in Idaho, Kerry said: “The family has it. I don’t have it.”

And that’s without mentioning the other gas-guzzlers this candidate and his family enjoy, all the while posturing about reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fuel efficiency.

At last count, there were eight “family” cars and SUVs, including the 1995 Suburban (15 mpg highway, 12 mpg city), a 1993 Land Rover Defender (12 mpg highway, 10 mpg city), a 1989 Jeep Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 16 mpg city), a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee (20 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Audi Allroad (21 mpg highway, 15 mpg city), a 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (25 mpg highway, 20 mpg city), a 1985 Dodge 600 Convertible (26 mpg highway, 23 mpg city), and a 2002 Chrysler 300M (26 mpg highway, 18 mpg city). Kerry, however, only owns up to the latter two.

Do as I say not as I do huh? Well the Nanny State in which we are all slowly being brought into has finally arrived. They seem to feel that they need to tell us what to do because we are too stupid to make our own decisions n this world. I know I am not a Sheeple, i have a sports car that gets about 25-30 MPG on the highway. I enjoy spending my money on my kids and not on some Arabian’s in ground da-durka shaped pool. If they want us to like them quit bullshifting us thinking we don’t know what they are up to!

John Edwards – I Don’t Know a Lot

Unalienable Rights has a quick witted look at John Edwards, considering Universal Healthcare is a big part of his platform and considering the controversy over Michael Moore’s Sicko, you would think John Edwards would know a bit more about Cuba’s Healthcare System…

John Edwards: “I’m going to be honest with you — I don’t know a lot…”

Wow. We knew John Edwards is oily, disingenuous, and phony to the core, but we did not know he is also apparently a real ignoramus. Via the Captain’s Quarters blog:

“I’m going to be honest with you — I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system,” Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. “Is it a government-run system?”

Tune in next week as Edwards asks, “I don’t know, is the Pope Catholic?”

How can anyone take the man seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land? Thankfully, so far a minority of Americans seem to be falling for the con. Hopefully this positive trend will continue.

Remember when, in the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was attacked mercilessly for not knowing the names of a few obscure foreign leaders? Let’s sit back and watch now to see if the “non-partisan, fair and objective” DeMSM will pounce on Edwards for this glaring ignorance of such a well-known fact. We would not advise holding your breath.

Meanwhile, we can apply the “shoe on the other foot test” — imagine what the response would be from the press (not to mention the nutroots/Angry Left blogs!) if Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney asked if the health care system in Cuba was government-run.

Edwards – “Prime” Real Estate Profits – Update

Michelle Maklin reports on another Double Standard by John Edwards, this time in regard to the Subprime lending debacle that is screwing the poor over because they were given loans that the banks knew they would not be able to payback. This is beyond the flip-flops of the past as Edwards has investment in those Subprime Lenders, yet he rages against them in his speeches to get votes.The only reason he is going to divest himself of these investments is because it has come to public light and the fact that he will lose more money as the Subprimes collapse. I think the latter is his real reasoning. If this was such a concern for him, he would have dumped those investments long ago when they were making him big money.

America please wake up and realize this fraud for what he is.

John’s New Logo – “I was for Making Money from SubPrime Lenders Before I lost Money to Them”

John Edwards: “Predatory lending” beneficiary?

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 17, 2007 08:41 AM

Welcome to John Edwards’ America, a land where Democrat presidential candidates demonize the businesses that made them rich. Via the WSJ today, a fresh look at silky hypocrisy. Headline: “Edwards, Foreclosure Critic, Has Investing Tie to Subprime Lenders:”

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. “I intend to help these people,” the former North Carolina senator said.

He also promised to cleanse his portfolio of any investments that may be profiting from their losses. “I am going to divest” from any Fortress funds that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures, he said in a telephone interview. “I will not have my family’s money invested in these firms.”

Such a man of belated principle is he.

Mr. Edwards didn’t give details on how or when he was going to proceed, either to alter his holdings or to aid borrowers. He said he plans to begin making amends to New Orleans homeowners first by contacting them and “seeing where they are in the process.” He said his help may come from his own cash or in collaboration with a charity that specializes in repairing homes. The foreclosures, Mr. Edwards said, “run counter to what I’m about.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards has particularly attacked lenders behind foreclosures in storm-slammed Louisiana. In April, he visited the devastated Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood to voice one of his main antipoverty planks: a proposal to rein in subprime-mortgage companies whose “shameful lending practices,” he said, threaten millions of working-class homeowners. “While Washington turns a blind eye, irresponsible lenders are pulling a fast one on hard-working homeowners,” Mr. Edwards said a few days later.

At the time in late 2005 when Mr. Edwards went to work for Fortress, it already had a stake in one subprime lender that subsequently foreclosed on some Katrina victims, Green Tree Servicing LLC. While he was there, Fortress acquired a second, Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Fortress paid Mr. Edwards $479,512 in 2006 for part-time work, a Federal Election Commission report in May showed.

After leaving the firm, he kept about half of his net worth in Fortress funds. And Fortress employees have collectively made up the largest class of political contributors to Mr. Edwards. Workers there put up more than $150,000 toward his presidential run in the first six months of the year.

The WaPo asked Edwards about Fortress in May. He says he was clueless. Yeah:

The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not.

And besides, when Edwards is involved with it, it isn’t “predatory lending,” you see. It’s called helping the poor, of course! Spin, spin, spin those Two Americas, Johnny Boy. More from the WSJ:

Edwards aides, while apologetic for the foreclosures, defended subprime lending in general. They pointed out the distinctions between subprime loans, which are extended to people with less-than-stellar credit, and “predatory” loans, which often target the same consumers but employ pressure sales tactics and punitive covenants that can strip equity from home buyers and tie them to onerous payments. Subprime loans, defenders note, can benefit many lower-income people previously locked out of home ownership.

Mortgage experts say there’s no clear line dividing standard subprime loans from “predatory” ones. Generally speaking, said Thomas Lawler, a former official at mortgage buyer Fannie Mae, predatory loans carry high interest rates that are allowed to rise but not drop. They may be loaded with prepaid fees. Lenders may make monthly payments look smaller than they really are by not requiring borrowers to put taxes and insurance in escrow. And the loans generally don’t allow early payoff without a steep penalty. That bars refinancing if interest rates drop.

Maybe someone should organize a “poverty tour” of those 34 homes in New Orleans whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress. They can rename the neighborhood “Edwardsville.”

***

Have a chuckle. Read John Edwards’ campaign page on “fighting predatory mortgages.”

Betsy Newmark weighs in:

I still think that there is something suspect about this nothingburger of a job that Edwards had there at Fortress. He earned close to half a million dollars for a 15-month stint working at Fortress to study the relationship of capital and poverty, but seemed to miss the whole involvement of his employer with subprime lending. If you or I wanted to study poverty and capital, we’d probably have to go to a university and do some research. Giving a job for someone to do some study while on the job just doesn’t rate a six-figure salary for anyone besides a potential presidential candidate. It seems yet another way to get around the campaign finance laws.

Update: Will comment later for now you can read the Washinton Post article on it.

Fortress hired Edwards as an adviser in October 2005, nearly a year after his losing campaign as Democratic vice presidential candidate. At the time, it owned a major stake in Green Tree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence in the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others.

Fortress and its partners bought Green Tree in 2003. According to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April, its holding in Green Tree was as high as $492.4 million at the end of 2005 — 4 percent of Fortress’s holdings at the time.

$492 Million and it was only 4 percent of Fortress’s holdings…

Last July, Fortress expanded its stake in the industry by buying Texas-based Centex Home Equity, a top-25 subprime lender, for an estimated $540 million. In December, Centex Home Equity, now called Nationstar Mortgage, bought the loan-origination division of Champion Mortgage, bringing another subprime lender into the Fortress portfolio.

In March, Newcastle Investment Corp., a real estate investment trust managed by Fortress, announced that it, too, was moving into the subprime market with the purchase of a $1.7 billion loan portfolio. Also in March, Fortress bought about $4 billion in subprime loans from Fremont General Corp.

Sounds like they learned a lot from John. Like what Subprime lenders to buy up…

Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his hiring that some of Fortress’s private equity holdings did lend to start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending practices. But he could not recall whether the firm’s partners told him it had a major stake in Green Tree.

Note: He could not recall

“Those are the things I remember,” he said. “They may have told me more.” Had he learned that Fortress owned a loan servicer with a history of predatory lending practices, he said, “I would have asked some very specific questions about it.”

So if they did tell he more he asked some very specific questions, that he cannot recall, however if they did not tell him, which he cannot recall, then he would not have asked them very specific questions? Come on John, either they told you or they did not.

Edwards said his role at a company with a growing stake in the subprime industry should not be seen as undermining his commitment to helping the poor. He noted that since the 2004 election, he has founded a poverty think tank, started a charity for poor college students and assisted campaigns to raise the minimum wage.

“If you put it in the context of all those things, it’s very clear where my heart is and where my commitment is,” he said.

Great a think tank for poverty. Maybe try investing that same money into the poor instead of paying rich people how to think of ways to help the poor. Yes John we see where your heart and commitment are. Sort of like the Walmart workers and your greed to get a Playstation…

Disclosure forms to be released on Tuesday will show how much Edwards was paid for his work at Fortress, which lasted until December 2006, when he stepped down to run for president. He has received $167,460 in campaign contributions from Fortress employees and their families, his largest sum from a single company.

Wow, 167,000 from employees and family. Sounds fishy if you ask me. Never mind that he profited off of the poor, he turned it into a campaign funding option, without having “Big business” lobby him. Sounds like a little more reform is needed there.

Edwards, a highly successful trial lawyer before entering politics, said yesterday he went to work for Fortress to learn more about capital markets. He acknowledged the job provided a financial benefit at a time when his only other salary was $40,000 from the poverty center.

Awww. John only got $40,000 from the Povert Center, what a shame he needed to make more… I bet that $40,000 a year would have been more than enough to pay the mortgage for some of these people that Fortress forclosed on.

I would also like to know exactly what he did for Fortress, where he was unaware of what their stakes were in a company that had been practicing sub-primes since the 90s.

“I’m 53 years old and have worked my whole life since I was a teenager, and here I was unemployed except for a part-time job, and so I wanted to work and earn an income,” he said. “No question that was part of it.”

Trial Lawyer, Former Senator… Hmm needs income, more than the $40,000 he was getting from his “Part-time” job at the poverty center. Sounds more and more like he is covering something up…

At the time of his hiring, he said, he sought assurance that Fortress was not involved in predatory lending, union-busting or dismantling companies. His work, he said, involved giving the firm insight into Washington and observing trends he saw while traveling the country. Some months found him at the firm’s New York offices for several days, and other months he would not go at all, he said.

Insight into Washington, another words who to manipulate and how to do it…

In hindsight, Edwards said, he does not regret taking the job. “I guess it’s my belief that I did learn something about capital markets that’s valuable,” he said. “I think it’s very important for a president to understand how markets operate.”

Hey John, there are many ways to learn how markets operate, other than stealing from the poor. I bet the Enron could have taught you a couple of things if you had signed on with them prior to their collapse.

All in all, John you are making excuses because you got caught red handed with your hand in the piggy bank. You are full of contradictions. You knew what they did, you assisted them in growing and now that the Presidential nomination is at stake you are claiming to be against them.

Democrats Do A Cartwheel on Iraq Troop Withdrawal

All of the current Presidential hopefuls for the Democratic Party have done a complete flip flop on the withdrawal of troops in Iraq.

Anyone remember the Democrats trying to force Bush to commit to a time table for withdrawal? Anyone remember their promises before last years elections that they would force Bush to withdraw troops? Anyone remember the democrats offering an actual plan up?

Well now it seems the Democrats do not think we can just pull our troops out, weren’t these the same people that thought we could? And when I say the same people, I mean the presidential hopefuls….

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates have set out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to prevent an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has suggested he would leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware proposes setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most U.S. troops.

 The Democratic solution that they have tried to put over on the American people is that Bush does not have a solution to end the Iraq crisis, well sorry but the Democrats definitely do not have one, they only have talking points to try and get elected.

Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in bringing out U.S. troops, which even optimistic experts say would take at least a year.

The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are also hoping to suppress any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they are elected.

Most have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain

I will put money down, that if a Republic gets elected as President in 2008, that these same Democrates will then demand what they demanded of Bush, even though they know they cannot deliver themselves.

Note the green emphasis on Obama and Hillary’s statements. FIGHT TERRORISM. So they now admit that the terrorists in Iraq pose a serious threat to the US and that we cannot just walk away. If these terrorists were not a threat to the US, then there would be no reason to leave troops behind to fight them.