Tyra Banks message to Hillary: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1550041775/bctid1552650354

A zillion times NO to HRC as VP. “Our answer is to rely on youth—not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress. It is a revolutionary world we live in; and this generation at home and around the world, has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. “Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills. Yet many of the world’s great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. “Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9JTYnMpRyg&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4vJxi9Kis&feature=related

Renata-Aggressive, unilateral, baseless war directed on a civilian population is a war crime…..everything that followed and continues to follow is a war crime. HRC voted for that. She and her hypocritical supporters have the blood of over one million innocent people and a destroyed county on their hands. It’s worst than disgusting, immoral and inhumane. It makes me sick, and has made me sick ever since. She had her BIG moment to truly stand for something, truly do something for humanity, truly show some genuine moral courage and she did not. All she had to do was say and vote no, just like the real heroes above, and she did not. Everything after that is mute.

Mugsy—maybe call a cop

Deni—Ditto Hillary’s…and no you’re post isn’t preaching…ummhmm

To answer the question. Yes. PACK IT IN. In the ULTIMATE test of courage, foresight, and intelligence. On the most important matter of our time she voted FOR an illegal, immoral, un-Constitutional invasion and mess that we are in, when it was evident then that it would be an ultimate tragedy. As Senator Chuck Hagel has said it is one of the 5 worst blunders in history. Here are the heroes who didn’t vote for it, and what did they predicted then: Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Mark Dayton (D-MN) Richard Durbin (D-IL) Russell Feingold (D-WI) Robert Graham (D-FL) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) James Jeffords (I-VT) Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Patty Murray (D-WA) Jack Reed (D-RI) Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Paul Wellstone (D-MN) Ron Wyden (D-OR) HRC heard these floor statements in Congress and many more and placed political expediency above moral courage and doing the right thing and proved once more she has no moral center. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) “Great uncertainty surrounds the President’s post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem. The United States lacks strategic planning for a post-conflict situation. Retired General George Joulwan recently said that the U.S. needs ‘to organize for the peace’ and design now a strategy with ‘clear goals, milestones, objectives.’ Our objectives in Iraq have not yet been made clear: is it our goal to occupy Baghdad and if so, for how long? A rush to battle without a strategy to win the peace is folly. Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the President must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace.” Kent Conrad (D-ND) “Before we ask young men and women to put themselves in harm’s way, I must be convinced that we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue. For me, and I believe for the people I represent, war must be the last resort. Saddam has not directly threatened his neighbors since the Gulf War. And a recent threat assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency concludes that Iraq is not likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States. “Yet the President is contemplating a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a new regime. Never before in the history of this nation has the Congress voted to authorize a preemptive attack on a country that has not first attacked us or our allies. In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous.” Mark Dayton (D-MN) “There appears to be no imminent threat to the United States from Iraq. If there were, the Bush Administration could not have decided last summer to delay this unveiling until September because, in the words of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Jr., ‘from a marketing point of view, you don’t bring out new products in August. Because Iraq’s threat is not immediate, and because U.N. diplomatic efforts are just under way, I believe it is unwise and unnecessary for Congress to vote now on a future use of military force. So why is Congress rushing to judgment at this time? It is for political advantage in the upcoming election, rather than diplomatic or military necessity.” Richard Durbin (D-IL) “Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory. “It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?” Russell Feingold (D-WI) “Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration’s arguments just don’t add up. They don’t add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us. “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I’m not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration’s motives in insisting on action at this particular time.” James Jeffords (I-VT) “I am very disturbed by President Bush’s determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and other top Administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term. We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our nation, or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends. Just think of what progress we could make on non-proliferation if we were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical or biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international non-proliferation regimes would truly enhance our nation’s future security.” Edward Kennedy (D-MA) “It is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. And it is wrong to divert our attention now from the greater and more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorism. We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us. We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and Al Qaeda.” Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don’t you decide; we are not going to. This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks. “We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war. The key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous [Gulf of Tonkin] resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before.” Carl Levin (D-MI) “The vote we take today may have significant consequences for our children and our grandchildren. I believe our security is enhanced when we seek to enhance the authority and credibility of the United Nations and when, if military force is required, it is done with support of the world community.” Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) “America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and costs. We need international legitimacy, international support, and international manpower. I also worry that unilateral action could undermine the war on terrorism. Some special forces have already been withdrawn in the efforts to hunt al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The focus of our top military and civilian leaders could shift away from Bin Laden and al Qaeda.” Jack Reed (D-RI) “Acting alone will increase the risk to our forces and to our allies in the region. Acting alone will increase the burden that we must bear to restore stability in the region. Acting alone will invite the criticism and animosity of many throughout the world who will mistakenly dismiss our efforts as entirely self-serving. Acting alone could seriously undermine the structure of collective security that the United States has labored for decades to make effective. Acting alone today against the palpable evil of Saddam may set us on a course, charted by the newly announced doctrine of preemption, that will carry us beyond the limits of our power and our wisdom.” Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) “If we do this right, Mr. President, we will truly make the world safer for our families. If we choose the wrong approach, I am deeply concerned that we will start down a road that could ultimately create a more unstable and dangerous world for our children and our grandchildren. There is no doubt that we can defeat Saddam Hussein in battle. The test of our strength is not in our ability to marshal our military forces, but our willingness to adhere to that which has made us great. We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our willingness to go the extra mile in the name of liberty and peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of the American people and get it right.” Ron Wyden (D-OR) “I am not convinced that Saddam Hussein currently poses a clear and present threat to the domestic security of our nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq’s support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al Qaeda, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11.”

“what you think of me, seems to depend on what time of day it is.” no it’s consistent

Here is a tracking page of a variety of polls over months and Obama bests the majority…and this is before the general election and before a VP choice. If he picks someone like former four star general, rhodes scholar and supreme commander of nato forces, wesley clark the numbers will go up. Plus the GOP has a current approval rating in the low 30s to the Demos approval rating in the 50s….and they just selected a motto that replicates one of an anti-depressant drug. Here’s the same tracking poll clinton vs. mccain…the imp number is the rcp average and obama and clintons is nearly equal against mccain.

My Alias— Obama built his 179 Delegate lead on much larger victories than Hillary’s 33% Victory in WVA w/ 5 Electoral Votes.. Idaho 4 Electoral Votes Obama 79% Clinton 17% Obama +62% Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes Obama 76% Clinton 24% Obama +52% Alaska 3 Electoral Votes Obama 75% Clinton 25% Obama +50% Washington 11 Electoral Votes Obama 68% Clinton 31% Obama +37% Georgia 15 Electoral Votes Obama 67% Clinton 31% Obama +36% Colorado 9 Electoral Votes Obama 67% Clinton 32% Obama +35% Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes Obama 66% Clinton 32% Obama +34% No Democrat has won the White House while losing Washington, D.C…. Barack Obama won Washington D.C. by 52%… Virgin Islands: Obama 70%+ 3 Delegates. Democrats Abroad: Obama: 65.8% Clinton: 32.5%

JackieOh—Yes, Sausalito, and SF is great I love it, but am very much looking forward to relocating to So of France. Personally I’d like to see Wesley Clark as VP or Senator. Jim Webb. Glad you like the links. Yes the world is crazy.

“High Society”

Kelly—“She’s one of the most polarizing people in the country.” Yes she is and am sorry ever supported the clintons and look forward to her going down in flames….she deserves it.

Deni- 1) I wasn’t attributing anything in your post to auntie em, I said all she ever does is complain and make thinly veiled attacks against others as she has done in this thread. 2) I also know you are in texas and not she. Perhaps if you and auntie em and mugsy weren’t the sanctimonious trio you could read more clearly. 3) kindly don’t attribute words to me I don’t use, ie “hatred” if a place is the pits that doesn’t mean I hate it…it isn’t worthy of that energy. You three are very sanctimonous and lets see where is any contributions besides what others shouldn’t do, or how the question is “not that *&+$#” again as mugsy so eloquently put it. This happens to be a major story and I don’t see the marshall that dragged you in here and chained any of you to the post. I also don’t see an introduction of a different slant. I also don’t need to be instructed about generosity….I know exactly what I do and for whom and why and what purpose. Sanctimony. Sanctimony. Sanctimony. Big time.

Mugsy- I could give a fig what you or frank thinks is tiresome….this is a stunningly revealing comment “it will be a very cold day in hell before I see the African-American churches marching for gay rights in this country, or for the ERA.” And am not interested in your opinion, you’re right.

Thanks for the sanctimony Mugsy….I’m concerned about people who are so divorced from their own humanity that they’d vote for someone who voted for an illegal war, is race baiting to the point the NYT and every party senior is trying to get her to leave…..I’m concerned about people who are so ill informed and a host of other things. You all can flame away and just don’t like it in return. too bad.