Are Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton The Same Person?

Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton? Are they the same candidate in different parties? Some people are beginning to say so.

Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is the most pro choice candidate in either party. Unlike her husband, Bill Clinton, she has not gone out of her way to dance, to say abortion is wrong but she supports the legal right to do it. For that, I give her points for integrity and honesty. For those in the abortion is murder camp, it must be illegal. They have no other choice, just in the same those who think capital punishment is morally wrong. And, for those who think it is acceptable legally, they cannot also say it is morally wrong to kill a baby. Logically, a person has really to choose one position of the other. Bill Clinton, as has Rudy Giuliani, taken both positions at once. Pretty much a cop-out.

Not Hillary Clinton. You won't hear pretend she thinks abortion is morally wrong. She's a pragmatist, but knows the double-view position is weak.

So then comes along a strong candidate like Giuliani. He's a darling among Republicans, and dangerous to Hillary Clinton. Why? Because his essential view on abortion equates with hers: keep abortion legal. She might have a more consistent view, but he will steal votes from abortion-minded Republicans.

Naturally, this is hardly the only issue driving the campaign, but in other areas, like perceived international leadership and dealing with Muslim terrorists, Giuliani trumps Clinton. I'm not the only who is noticing this. Leaders among a core group of evangelical voters agree, like those at the Family Research Council.

Meanwhile, Clinton is leading Barack Obama by truckloads of support. I'm beginning to think the election for him is over, and that he is running for 2012. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, but loses the general presidential election, Obama can position himself as a leader among men. By 2012, any comments about experience have no impact, and people will be used to his unusual name. He'll be a brand name to be reckoned with.

Conservative Christian leader equates Giuliani with Clinton
He says ex-mayor too much like New York senator, will doom GOP if nominated

10:43 PM CDT on Wednesday, October 10, 2007
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
wslater@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – A leading conservative Christian leader said Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton are virtually "indistinguishable" to many social conservatives, and that those voters will abandon the GOP if Mr. Giuliani is the presidential nominee.

"There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties when you look at advancing candidates like this," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

In a conference call with reporters to promote this month's Values Voter Summit in Washington, Mr. Perkins acknowledged that religious conservatives at the heart of the Republican base are divided over the party's presidential field.

But he warned that nominating the former New York mayor, who supports abortion rights and gay rights, would probably drive away enough anti-abortion voters to put Mrs. Clinton in the White House.

"Will evangelicals vote for him? Yes, there will be some," said Mr. Perkins. "But some social conservative support is not enough to win."

Address by the President to the Nation on the Way Forward in Iraq

Address by the President to the Nation on the Way Forward in Iraq
Oval Office

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. And finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work." And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces, and they are the tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks -- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They're sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They're allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable -- although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free."

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

END 9:18 P.M. EDT

source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070913-2.html

Bin Laden Urges Americans to Convert to Christianity (Only Jesus is Lord, He Cries Out!)

Bin Laden Urges Americans to Convert

Osama bin Laden, denouncing his claim as the Living Prophet of the Church of Latter Day Terrorists, has himself converted to Christianity. Realizing murdering Americans as a proselytizing method, he has decided to pursue a more peaceful way.

Noting Billy Graham (http://www.bgea.org) is ill and no longer the evangelist he once was, and that he, bin Laden, is a young buck by comparison, taking up Graham's place at the pulpit would be an honor.

Comfortable in this new spiritual skin of his, he has publicly apologized to leading Jews, and to the Jewish community on the whole for what he called, "My infidelic ways," against God's chosen people. They warmly embraced him, and gave him Mel Gibson's phone number so they could discuss ideas for repairing relationships, and then shared some chicken soup.

Salt Lake City, the headquarters for the Morons (the popular name for the Church of Latter Day Terrorists) , had mixed feelings. They thought bin Laden's bombing on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was poor form, but, they also knew his family life was built on "shaking sand and oil money." They went onto say he was a good recruiter, but was misguided. They wanted him involved in stem cell research, not terror cell development. It was their fault, they said, claiming they should not have expected a rich kid from the country of Sudan to know English well.

Bin Laden is scheduled to appear next week on CNNLive, Larry King and the 700 Club, with cameos on Jay Leno and Ellen. The Oprah Show could not confirm whether he would be on because of scheduling conflict with diet guru Bob Greene. They said they thought bin Laden would be a great guest, but Greene was going to be on with Martha Stewart to make a Rachel Ray inspired pork dish, and that, "You know Martha and Bob, they just have to have their pork."

Hillary Clinton's campaign bristled at the thought of another Christian in world leadership, while Barack Obama nodded his head, and with his big Tiger Woods-sized smile, said he thought the US should leave Iraq, and this just proves it. Louis Farrakhan shrugged, "Eh, you win some you lose some."

Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats: Hillary Rants Back

Rudy Giuliani is working hard to do things: become president and look like a Republican. To look like a Republican, he needs to work back to what classic Republican stands are and use the vocabulary to impress those who like to call themselves Republican.

He is already working against conservative voters with his pro-choice views, as well as his relatively complicit positions regarding gays. He stands by those views with conviction. He hasn't helped himself by his marital affairs and divorce. So he is doing what he needs to in order to win the conservative hearts: attack Hillary, and say, "I'm not a Democrat looking to weasel into your lives."

By ranting the tax-and-spend line, he is saying he is really Republican.

Hillary Clinton ranted back by saying Giuliani is just like her in many regards, but not enough to be presidential.

This is all vagaries now, jockeying for media image rather than real issues. Hillary needs to be seen as still the top contender, while Rudy must lift himself back to the top. Both candidates are facing questions of electability, followed by hard-charging competition in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Giuliani outlines tax plan, blasts Democrats
Boston Globe
By Philip Elliott, AP Writer
August 25, 2007

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said Democrats would raise taxes and brutalize the economy if they win the 2008 presidential election.

"'We must take things away from you for the common good,'" Giuliani said, mocking Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a top contender for her party's nomination.


"Do you understand what that implies? No, it's not Karl Marx. What she's saying in that is that 'We know better, the government knows better.'"


In contrast, Giuliani said he would lower taxes, make permanent President Bush's tax cuts and eliminate inheritance taxes.

Politicians Cash In, Cash Out as Authors

You already know this. Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Edwards all have books making them piles of money. Some are already wealthy enough to easily cast a half million or more away to charity, a noble thing to do. Not one has yet to give the proverbial widow's mite, but every dollar helps.

Which brings me to a point. Why not consider (at least) for every dollar you give to support your candidate (including T-shirt purchases, books as well as donations), you support and equal amount toward the local homeless mission nearest your home? I'm doing that. And, at least 10% of whatever my blog makes will go to a nonprofit charity.

Top candidates profit from book deals (Yahoo.com story)

Search Books by Your Favorite Politician

Hillary Rodham Clinton

John McCain

Barack Obama

John Edwards

John Kerry

Mitt Romney

Bill Richardson

Jimmy Carter

Tom Tancredo

Dennis Kucinich

Mike Huckabee

Joe Biden

Chris Dodd

Rudy Giuliani

The Reviews Are In: Hillary 'Rising Above' (Press release from HC)

8/19/2007
The Reviews Are In: Hillary 'Rising Above'

'The Strongest,' 'Tough and Well Prepared'

ABC NEWS' RICK KLEIN – HILLARY 'RISING ABOVE THE REST OF THE FIELD': "Clinton still rising above the rest of the field -- why not, as long as you're leading in the polls?" [ABC News Political Radar, 8/19/07 ]

MARK HALPERIN 'I THINK SENATOR CLINTON ONCE AGAIN…WAS THE STRONGEST' [ABC Iowa 5, 8/19/07]

MSNBC'S DOMENICO MONTANARO – CLINTON WAS 'TOUGH AND WELL PREPARED' "Clinton was again solid, no gaffes as usual. She is tough and well prepared." [MSNBC, First Read, 8/19/07 ]

NEW YORK TIMES' KATHARINE SEELYE – A 'STANDOUT' ANSWER TO CLOSE THE DEBATE: "Mrs. Clinton, the last to speak, had more time to think about her answer and had the standout: 'I could not be standing here without the women's movement,' she said. It helped women and people of color become part of the American Dream. She paid homage to her mother, who never went to college, 'but gave me the belief that I could do whatever I set my mind to.'" [New York Times, 8/19/07 ]

WASHINGTON POST'S CHRIS CILLIZZA – HILLARY 'PUSHED BACK EFFECTIVELY' WHEN ATTACKED: "Clinton pushed back effectively by noting that 'we' (she and Bill Clinton presumably) had been fighting and beating back Republicans for more than a decade and that the idea that the GOP would not attack any candidate who was the Democratic nominee was naive." [Washington Post's The Fix, 8/19/07 ]

HUFFINGTON POST'S RACHEL SKLAR – HILLARY SOUNDS 'STRONG AND AUTHORITATIVE' ON IRAQ: Sklar commented on Clinton's response on withdrawing American troops in Iraq: "She sounds strong and authoritative here." [Huffington Post, 8/19/07 ]

HUFFINGTON POST'S GLYNNIS MACNICOL – 'HILLARY IS REALLY GOOD ON STAGE. SO POLISHED' [Huffington Post, 8/19/07 ]

source: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2923

Lane Hudson's Love Affair With the Republicans

Lane Hudson, the same blogger whose name was involved in the Mark Foley homosexual page chasing scandal, is trying hard to become relevant. Afraid, apparently, of non-candidate Fred Thompson, Hudson filed an FEC Compaint that Thompson has broken FEC regs.

Why?

Forbes reported this. So did lots of media. My guess, cynically, is that Hudson either thinks his blog matters, that he matters, or, is just trying to stir up interest in his blog so that he can garner PayPal and Google clicks.

Full disclosure here: I have similar links. Google ads, when clicked, make me money. Ones on Hudson's site get him a few cents. A dollar donation gets either of us a dollar as well.

Is Hudson threatened by Thompson's success? If his goal isn't the almighty dollar, then why else would he bother?

Self-importance? It could be. That's my motivation.

Think of this: With a Republican in the White House, Rush Limbaugh has less interesting things to talk about. He's not Republican, but he might as well be one their campaign leaders. With Nancy Pelosi in office, Limbaugh has a bit more, as he does by yucking up his grief of the Democrats who are running for office.

Could be Lane Hudson, despite mattering less to Democrats than Limbaugh matters to Republicans, is a wannabe. A one trick pony which no longer even has that trick. Remember whats-her-name, that woman pretending to be an antiwar leader? Gone. Her one trick wasn't much of a trick. And that Chicago woman hunkered in a church so she wouldn't be deported (she was here illegally as a Mexican)? Gone. Hudson, having less to say, is still talking, and, soon, come around January 21, 2009, will have little new noise to toot.

He needs Republicans making big and little mistakes. When the next president takes office, it just will not matter. Not my blog either. Even if a Democrat is the winner of the big dance.

Blogs all over are talking about candidates and election. Most of our blogs are not read by more than a few hundred people. Hudson's name, thanks to outing Foley's pedophiliac actions, is known to the press. Milking this a little longer might just get his blog read by a few hundred more. Since most people, in my unscientifically proven belief, read only blogs that say what already think, I doubt it will make a difference. Not his blog, not my blog, not 1,000 other blogs.

Polls are, at this point, showing Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democrat primary. Polls change day to day, but so far, that's the story. Barack Obama is coming in strong. Among the Republicans though, the story is not as clear. If I were to believe what seems to be Hudson Lane's interest, I say he sees the Democrats worried in November 2008.

This does not change whether or not Thompson has or has not broken the law. I don't know. If so, whatever procedure is to follow should be applied.

As I say in a comment on Hudson's blog:

Rules are rules, and should be followed. If one person needs to follow them, they all should.

It had not occurred to me, until now, that although the Democrats have cleared the election to either Hillary or Barack, the Republicans lead runner is yet undeclared, and quite possibly their strongest hope against the Democrats.

I always felt Rudy, McCain, and the rest of the Repubs were lost in the water, but Thompson could be their ace in the hole. I thought this was the Democrats election to lose, but Thompson could make this a horse race.

We live in a free country. We've got the Constitution, the ACLU, the Nation of Islam, and Billy Graham all living well together. And we have bloggers who whine, and bloggers who post about bloggers who whine. We have the KKK, Archie Bunker, and David Koresh.

Well, there you go. Freedom. Thank God.

Who Do We Like Least? Democrats Vie for Public Distaste

Who Loves You, Baby?

No one.

It used to be a well-appreciated fact: America hates Bush. Besides, with the Republicans controlling Congress, there was plenty for a Democrat to hate.

That's now trouble. As it seems, given the opportunity, Democrats are very disliked too. They are running Congress now. After much celebration with the more liberal side of the Democratic Party stepping in under Nancy Pelosi, it looked as if Democrats were as popular as the late Ronald Reagan. Not so.

The survey shows Bush's approval ratings at 35 percent, and Congress' even lower, 25 percent. Only 27 percent of those polled said the country is headed in the right direction, and 39 percent said they support the Iraq war, with 58 percent opposed.

That's what it says in an AP piece posted on Yahoo.

No wonder George Bush seemed almost happy when she took office. Congress would make him look good. Who woulda thunk?

What are we supposed to do with that? We love to blame, but we don't know who to blame.

Where this leaves the presidential candidates is the need to push hope. Bill Clinton and Reagan were masters of this. Bush, both, were masters at promoting security, but feeble when it came to hope.

When election times comes, if we dislike everybody in theory (do we really hate Congress that much, or are we just tired of their reputation of giving themselves raises in troubled times, as ethics scandals creep out?) -- will anyone show up to vote? If we are left with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude, ambivalence will follow, finished off by ignoring the whole election.

We need hope. Real hope, not marketed garbage that is the product of a PR campaign. We need to believe in substance. George W Bush, for all his foibles, is a man of conviction. We need that character in office, with convictions we agree with, we can trust. Kerry lost because we never trusted he had any convictions. John Edwards, to a less degree, seems as wishy-washy (though he is committed to good hair, and is willing to invest in it).

As hope-mongers go, Barack Obama is in better shape, for now, than Hillary Clinton. She's working on this. Obama is simply more stable in his presentation. He feels believable, like a father figure. Reagan was a tough cowboy grandfather, but Obama is softer. He's not exactly Mike Brady of the Brady Bunch, but he carries himself with an academic certainty.

Among the Republicans? Hope is an easier sell for them to their followers. Republican voters tend to look at life and politics more optimistically. However, the Democrats are doing their best to chip away at it.

With Mitt Romney, the Democrats, and even Planned Parenthood is trying to say he's not prochoice and has changed his vote. Prolife Republicans are responding, "Atta boy!" much to the Democrat's chagrin. Rudy Giuliani has divorced to often to feel like a hopeful guy. He's humorous, but not hopeful. Fred Thompson, the jury is still out, but he could play that tenor. John McCain is dead in the water, and was nothing but an interview expert on TV talk shows.

When we all line up to vote, who is still arouning kissing babies is yet to be seen. This much we know, we probably don't like them.

Hillary Clinton Announces Rebuild America Plan

Hillary Clinton Announces Rebuild America Plan

Rochester, NH-- In response to the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota and the concerns it has raised around the country, Hillary Clinton today announced a series of emergency initiatives to ensure that the bridges, tunnels, and roads Americans rely on are safe. These initiatives are part of a broad plan for rebuilding America. Hillary’s plan will not only assure our safety, but create good jobs, stimulate the economy, enhance our global competitiveness, help the environment, and improve quality of life by reducing congestion.

"Something is very, very wrong when, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in the richest country on earth, people are actually nervous about driving over bridges for fear that they’ll collapse. Or they’re worried that their levees may burst, or their highways may buckle. And let’s be clear: the degradation of our infrastructure isn’t just a serious threat to our safety - it is also a grave threat to our economy," Clinton said. "We do not need any more warnings. We do not need any more wakeup calls. It is time to stop wringing our hands and start rolling up our sleeves. It is time for us to rebuild America."

The bridge collapse in Minnesota underscores the necessity of a renewed national commitment to repairing and modernizing our infrastructure. The impact of Katrina on New Orleans was also a dramatic demonstration of the economic, environmental, and social consequences of our underinvestment. Hillary believes that we should not have to wait for bridge collapses and other disasters to focus on the state of our infrastructure. America needs a comprehensive infrastructure policy for the 21st Century.

More than a quarter of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Public transit systems are under-funded and insufficiently integrated into local land use policy. Highway expansion has not kept pace with traffic growth. Seaports are too capacity constrained and technologically inefficient for a nation deriving a quarter of its gross domestic product from international trade. Waterway repairs are so long overdue that half of the nation’s locks are now functionally obsolete. Freight rail capacity constraints are slowing down commerce. And inter-city passenger rail is underdeveloped, meaning increased highway congestion and lost opportunities to create new jobs.

Hillary Clinton is announcing her Rebuild America Plan to address these challenges:

Emergency Initiatives Addressing Safety:

Establish a $10 billion "Emergency Repair Fund" to address the backlog of critical infrastructure repairs. There is a significant infrastructure funding gap, and it applies to everything from roads and bridges, to waterways and seaports. The under investment harms our economy and compromises our safety. There is an urgent need to repair and upgrade more than 60,000 bridges the Federal Highway Administration classifies as “structurally deficient.” Hillary will invest $10 billion over 10 years to finance the redesign and reconstruction of these structures. She will end the “repair-only-when-it-fails” policy that defers critical repairs because funding is unavailable.

Provide $250 million in "Emergency Assessment Grants" to the states to conduct immediate safety reviews of their high-priority, high-risk infrastructure assets. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has issued an advisory that urges state transportation departments to inspect bridges similar to the one that collapsed in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton proposes $250 million of “Emergency Assessment Grants” to help states conduct emergency infrastructure reviews of bridges and other critical infrastructure to ensure their immediate safety. These grants should be available with a priority-procurement status so they can be put to use as quickly as possible. If more funding is needed, Hillary will allow states and local governments the flexibility of using existing federal infrastructure funding.

Form a commission to carry out a comprehensive assessment of our engineering review standards so that we better prioritize needed repairs on bridges and roads. Recent events highlight the need to assess the integrity of our infrastructure and of prioritizing repairs to protect the safety of users. These events also suggest that we need to review our safety certification process and standards. The bridge collapse is only the most recent example of safety lapses. Last July, tons of concrete fell from the ceiling of Boston’s new tunnel and crushed a woman in her car. Hillary Clinton will establish a commission, under the auspices of the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to review the safety certification process and standards. The commission will also address the prioritization of needed repairs to roads and bridges, and make recommendations on how best to inspect, monitor, and maintain infrastructure on an ongoing basis.

Modernizing Our Infrastructure:

Public Transit

Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.

Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.

Intercity Passenger Rail

Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. In the 21st Century, intercity passenger rail should be a viewed as a critical component of the nation’s transportation system. It is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas. States have been left to pursue intercity rail projects with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in intercity passenger rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to those made in Amtrak.

Seaports

Partner with state and local governments and the private sector to create a national policy to guide the modernization of ports. Given the importance of foreign trade to our economy (26% of GDP), ports should be a priority for the federal government. The movement of freight by sea is expected to triple by 2020. Today, a large number of ports are in substandard condition. Many are cramped; navigation channels are narrow; harbors are too shallow for larger ships; access routes are congested; and investments in waterway managements have been low. Hillary will work with state and local governments and the private sector to devise a coherent and comprehensive national policy to expand our port capacity and our port-to-nation transportation connections. She will also work with industry to improve port productivity through such things as the deployment of new technology and by addressing congestion at the major terminals.

Addressing Congestion and Traffic Growth:

Increase the budget for the Department of Transportation’s congestion reduction programs by approximately 50% to $600 million annually. Federal support for innovative state and local congestion-reduction initiatives flows principally through two programs: Urban Partnerships and the Value Pricing Pilot Program. The combined budget for these two programs is approximately $400 million. Hillary will increase the budgets by 50% to $600 million annually to enable the programs to provide greater support to a larger number of cities and states devising innovative solutions to congestion.

Make "technology solutions" to congestion a priority for the Department of Transportation. Congestion is adding about 37% to the length of the average trip during peak hours, a three-fold increase from 1983. Road construction alone cannot be the solution to congestion because it is costly and environmentally impractical. Also, capacity additions alone will not eliminate congestion problems because traffic disruptions from things like weather, breakdowns, and road work account for one third to one half of all delays. Many traffic disruptions can be addressed by using advanced technologies to collect and relay real-time information on road and travel conditions. Also sophisticated traffic lanes management and more rapid incident clearance are shown to significantly reduce congestion. Electronic toll systems reduce backup at toll booths. In sum, the roadways of the future must integrate smart technology. Hillary will make developing and implementing technology-based congestion-reduction strategies a priority for the Department of Transportation.

Promote telecommuting by encouraging its use at federal agencies, and by committing up to $50 million per year to support state and local initiatives. Work travel imposes a greater service requirement on the transportation system than any other travel purpose. Telecommuting, the use of information technology to replace work-related travel, can ameliorate congestion and air pollution by reducing rush-hour car trips. Telecommuting can also benefit employers by reducing office space needs and increasing worker productivity. Hillary Clinton will promote telecommuting by requiring the federal agencies to set specific telecommuting goals for their workforces, and she will require that each agency task a senior manager with oversight of its telecommuting policies. Hillary will also invest up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives.

Broadband:

Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She will also provide financial support for state and local broadband initiatives.

In addition to the policies announced today, as Senator, Hillary has cosponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. The Act establishes a federally-backed independent entity that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects that are of regional or national significance. The bank will finance projects through the issuance of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, direct subsidies, and loan guarantees.

source: http://www.hillaryclinton.com

• Buy cool Barack Obama shirts
• Ron Paul gear for the underdog
• What about Bush... when?!! 2024? His camp is starting now.
• More Barack Obama shirts (and mugs)
• Don't leave out Hillary Clinton. She's got T-shirts too (yes, mugs too)

Hillary versus Rudy: Battle of the Complexes

The question came up, "If Hillary Clinton ran against Rudy Giuliani, who would win?"

No, this isn't celebrity boxing. Rudy's ex-wives could beat up Hillary. He has, what, three of them?

And this isn't battle of the sexes. Rudy's a man too.

John Kerry. Remember him? Not many do. He was the guy back in 2004 who ran against George W Bush. Bush was saluted with a record number of popular votes, trouncing the hapless Kerry. Some of those who voted for Kerry really were not Kerry supporters, but hated Bush with more passion than a KKK member. So, Kerry had his political butt handed to him on a platter.

Rudy Giuliani does not want to be John Kerry.

What? Rudy is a Republican. Kerry is a Democrat.

Right. Where they are similar is that Hillary Clinton's supporters are pro-Hillary. Rudy's will include a large batch of anti-Hillary supporters. Kerry's campaign was set on shifting sand, "Anyone but Bush." If Rudy rides the waves of "Anyone but Hillary," then he'll land on the sand just to be swept away.

Rudy's other problem is Barack Obama. As noted in an early post (Barack Obama is not a Pacifist (so what?)), Obama's not against military intervention against terrorism. One of Rudy's selling points, like the floundering John McCain's, is his commitment to putting down al Qaeda. Now, Obama's on cue, making sure his supporters know he's not exactly pro-war, but that he'll do what it takes. This will not steal away all of Rudy's supporters, but it will grab a few liberals that want an anti-terrorist candidate. Rudy isn't exactly a moral conservative, being called a champion of gay rights and supporter of abortion.

See: Political positions of Rudy Giuliani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Michael Long, chairman of the New York state Conservative Party of New York stated, "The gay marriage issue draws a line down the middle of the street, and Rudy Giuliani is something of a champion of gay rights."

Pro-Iraq, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage conservatives might jump the morally ambiguous Republican Party and vote third party. I can see Ron Paul (see Ron Paul for President) landing as such a candidate. The third party candidate might pull a Ross Perot, stealing enough votes from the Republican presidential candidate to put Rudy under the Brooklyn Bridge.

If Hillary's snags Barack Obama as her running mate, and the race is against Rudy Giuliani (running mate unknown), at this moment (I have waffled immensely), it could be a landslide. Rudy does not have the moral differentiation, nor the completeness of difference regarding war, that he once appeared to have.