You've mastered the GOP talking points, but that's all.

And if meeting with foreign leaders without pre-conditions was really so bad, you'd think hillary would be hammering him on it instead of unimportant remarks.

And comparing a person of Obama's education, erudition, experience, and judgement to Bush is something I would expect from Hillary, who just happens to have voted along with the worst of the GOP/NeoCon agenda.

Finally, your statement about Iran's president shows how little you ( and perhaps Hillary) know about that country, where the president is a person of very limited actual authority. He isn't going to attack Israel with nukes for the obvious reasons that he hasn't the authority, and  Iran can't possibly have any such weapons for many years by which time he wouldn't even be president anyway. This whole thing is just a game of Hillary's to stir up fear the way Bush does.

We've all been told that the DLC inspired 14 state strategy, that lost the last two elections, is the only hope of Democrats in this one. But most of us no longer believe it.

The definition of stupid is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Democrats who think beyond the old confines are the ones who will win.

Hillary has a record that isn't thin -- of supporting NAFTA and voting for the worst of Bush's agenda....and that trip to Bosnia with her daughter and Sinbad the comedian.

Compared to that, Rezko and Wright aren't even blips on a radar screen.

I asked him that too in a previous thread. His silence is deafening. I really don't see how he can do more than sit on his hands for the fall campaign after all the rotten things he's said about Obama and those who prefer him.

"I suppose, physically, he's moving to the center by literally going to Fox News."

It's most likely the simple fact that a lot of people in upcoming primary states watch that network, so he's going where the voters are.

"Moderates and republicans will never believe that he's one of them."

Hillary has been busting her hump to make the right think she's one of them. Which is the most likely reason she won't be the Democratic nominee.

"Can you please elaborate what Senator Obama's stated position is what United States would do under his administration in case Israel is attacked by Iran?"

Smart candidates don't address far fetched hypotheticals.
But desperate ones like Hillary do.

The point in question was who rattled the nuclear sabre. It was Hillary. If you think that's good, then it's one reason why you support her -- but it's also one also one reason why most don't.

It's called arithematic.

Chuck Todd: 'Impossible for Obama to Lose His Lead'

"... his movement, and its message, has moved to the left-- or really, think of it more as movement to an angry, not hopeful, message."

Who would have thought we'd live to see the guy who helped Markos Moulitsas write "Crashing The Gates" parrot  conservatism's favorite talking point, that liberalism is "angry."

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

"Does Hill stand a realistic chance of putting the state in play against McCain in November?"

Obviously not since she doesn't even stand a realistic chance of being the Democratic nominee.

Obama: Use of nuclear weapons 'not on the table'

The thing that makes Obama different is that he has been funded by the people.

DLClinton sold herself to the highest bidders decades ago.

You're not even loosely making sense now.

Better to not vote than openly back Bush as Hillary did yet again.

She seems to have a thing for NeoCon policies.