The best part is when you refer to a death threat against a "major candidate", with the delicious implication that a death threat against Chris Dodd would be less significant. Seriously, kudos.

If you are a parody intending to drive readers away from voting for Hillary, you're doing a fantastic job. Priceless.  

By the way, many more than three Hillary supporters recommended this travesty of a diary. It's not just three Hillary supporters who comprise the problem.

his an enormously important issue and it's disappointing to me that none of the "big three" prez candidates has taken a courageous position on it.

There are so many things wrong with the Drug War that it's nearly impossible to list them all. Among those things are:

(1) the impact that the Drug War has on our efforts in Afghanistan, where our obsession with shutting down the poppy fields has led to massive negative blowback;

(2) the fact that many patients are deprived of medicine that would do more to ease their suffering and/or cure their illnesses (and no, Marinol is NOT as effective as marijuana for these conditions; everytime I hear that idiotic, uninformed point I want to scream!);

(3) a massive, unnecessary increase in violent crime resulting from the black markets created by our current system;

(4) the injustice of imprisoning thousands uppon thousands of people merely because of what they put in their own bodies.

Great post.  

I agree completely.

That's a fair and earnest reply, but I strongly disagree with you.

(1) I don't care how many users are responsible; I care about the number of crappy posts I have to wade through to get to something meaningful. annefrank wrote a silly, content-less post on one of the recommended diaries (hillary=dynasty, etc) but in comparison the Hillary-bots in question are indefatigable in their dumbassery.

If you have statistics that prove otherwise, I'd seriously consider that argument.

(2) I am always happy to read informed, considered pro-Hillary stuff. In fact, I think that is the most unfortunate aspect of the current situation here. The Hillary-bots are turning me (and, potentially, others) off to a candidate who remains, in my opinion, leagues better than anybody the Repubs might nominate.

(3) There are currently five recommended diaries here.

One is written by a Hillary supporter with the following sig:

"On national security, Hillary sounds like JFK, GOPers sound like Bush on steroids, some other Dems sound like Carter on Prozac."

The first response to that diary, by another Hillary supporter, is:

"Good Info, man. Yeah She is taking a lot of incoming fire both from within the camp and from hostile forces , but I am confident She can weather the stone. We are in for a long 4 months of intense battle and in the end others will be the casualities." (too many sics to include them all)

A second of the five recommended diaries, written by desmoinesdem in an earnest tone, received the following response from a Hillary supporter:

"Do you know how childish this is. C'mon desmoinedem you should know better. This is getting a bit ridiculous."

A third of the five is this ludicrous diary. Is it fair to criticize Obama for reaching out to conservative Repubs? Of course. Is it fair to laundry-list wacko positions of Tom Coburn and then state/imply WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that those are "some . . . views that Obama presumably thinks he can accommodate in the spirit of bi-partisanship." Of course not. It's appalling.

I've briefly discussed a majority of the currently recommended diaries. My position that a solid majority of obnoxious, content-less posts come from Hillary-bots is pretty defensible. Again, the worst thing about this stuff is that it demeans a good candidate. The second worst thing is that it demeans a good forum.

By the way, on the merits I'm ambivalent at best regarding Obama's actions here.

I support politicians working together to the extent that such work benefits the country. My hope is that all of this "working together with a few good Republicans" schtick is a form of political jujitsu comparable (in tactical/strategic terms) to Reagan's co-opting many prominent Dems in the 80's. Pushing progressive ideas further into the political mainstream is a good thing. Obviously, as we've discussed on this site often, many such ideas are already well within the ideological mainstream of voting Americans.  

That said, the whole thing smacks of Broderism to me and I can't say I'm big on it.

I'm not referring to name calling. I'm referring to terrible posts like "Yeah, but he sings a mean Kumbaya". (I don't intend to pick on that particular post - I could easily come up with a hundred posts that are as bad or worse, given a couple horrible hours of research.)

(1) Hillary supporters do not have a monopoly on these posts.

(2) There are certainly Hillary supporters here who don't post crap like that. For example, I generally enjoy reading georgep's posts.

(3) Nevertheless, a solid majority of these content-less posts are written by a few Hillary supporters. It's sad, because they are slowly ruining what was once a wonderfully high standard of conversation around here.  

The Hillary trolls have made these boards close to unreadable.

You didn't address my point - that Vox's characterization of Obama's position is blatantly inaccurate. I'm not interested in your amateurish political diagnoses.

It appears that you are a Hillary Clinton supporter. Perhaps you should refocus your efforts on electing Ms. Inevitable rather than tearing down the other candidates.  

Conflating (1) Obama's expressed positions with (2) "thousands of troops invad[ing] the tribal areas" emphasizes to me that you are not analyzing this issue in good faith.

Obama didn't call for anything of the sort.

I can understand those who disagree with taking a public stance to this effect. Certainly managing our relationship with Musharrif is a subtle, difficult task requiring deft and ample diplomacy.

But it is a very different thing to accuse Obama of "calling for unilateral war against Pakistan."

Obama has proposed:

IF we have "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets" who helped execute the 9/11 attacks and are currently planning future attacks against the US;

and IF those individuals happen to be in Pakistan;

then the US should aggressively attempt to kill them.

From this, you interpret that Obama is "calling for a unilateral war against Pakistan"? You're either mistaken or acting in bad faith.

Edwards won't win by tearing Obama down.  

I understand your point, but is it too much to ask Vox (and other diarists) to read and respond to the speech itself?

See markjay's comment on Jerome's post for one example of attacking Obama's position without relying on smears and outright mistruths.  

Thank you. The title insults the intelligence of mydd readers.

Regardless of one's position on Obama's proposed stance re Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations, it's clear that Obama has not done anything in the same zip code as "calling for a unilateral war against Pakistan."

And regardless of one's position on the 2008 primary (mine is Edwards > Obama >>>>> Hillary, for anyone who's dying to know), no good can come from (intentionally?) smearing and distorting Obama's positions.    

Vox should change the title promptly and apologize.

It's amazing to me that people can swallow Bob Casey in PA but not Jim Webb in VA when:

1. PA is slightly bluer than VA;

2. Jim Webb is, in most respects, more in line with progressive principles than Bob Casey;

3. George Allen is AT LEAST as poor a Senator as Rick Santorum (if you don't believe me, I can elaborate further).

If I can support Bob Casey in PA, then I think it's fair for me to expect others in the party to support Jim Webb.