Howard Dean is first.

Phil is correct!

Don't worry mary vb... Barrack did fine.

Hillary was doing that smirky, star-gazing thing which seemed way too rehearsed and smug. She played right into the hands of the mudslinging faux newsmen, but didn't impress me with having a soul.

I'm still not giddy over Obama, but Hillary just sunk deeper into the hole she's dug. Barrack wants out of that whole grappy soap opera mentality, along with the rest of us.

Strength thru peace!!

Love ya'll, mean it!!

Barack not Barrack.

The media tried to bury Barack with Rev. Wright - it didn't take.
The media tried to bury Barack with the nontroversy over bittergate. It didn't take.
Now ABC tried to bury Barack with the *debate*. Hopefully he'll raise a lot of money and come out swinging. BTW another Super D for him tonight - four for the day. I don't have the link but it's a Clinton supporter who switched.

NOT THIS TIME.

Daily Kos

CALL ABC AGAIN: 212-456-7777 and ask For Stephanopoulos's VM

Clinton, ABC News, and Sean Hannity conspired together for so called debate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/16/13329/3501/457/496866

You heard it here first. Council member and newly-elected superdelegate Harry Thomas Jr., initially a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is announcing in minutes that he will cast his vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver for Sen. Barack Obama.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/04/breaking_news_thomas_backs_oba.html

Barry's biggest touche of the night was his response to Hillary's nagging him about a casual acqaintance with the head of the Underground  Weathermen, who had said after 9/11 something like "we should have bombed even more than we did"

Hillary said the Republican are going to hit us with that kind of stuff.

Obama quipped, "Bill Clinton pardoned two former members of the Weather Underground.  I think that's more significant than my sitting on the same board with one."

The only time he look a little pissed.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/24954#comment-1188534

old

Stephanopolous jabbing, interrupting Obama to make him look like a rascist divider.  Reminded me of when he was a hyperactive adult (who forgot his medication) in the first  Bill Clinton campaigns.

Bill Clinton (43%) and fiscal conservative Ross Perot (18.9%) beat GHW Bush (37.4%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

Stephanopolous was Bill Clinton's campaign manager in the 1992 campaign.

Don't worry mary vb... Barrack did fine.

Hillary was doing that smirky, star-gazing thing which seemed way too rehearsed and smug.

========================

The Joker - in Batman and Robin.

In the debate Obama was asked some very direct tough questions. He answered them well. He will be asked worse questions than these  in the fall if he's the nominee. I thought Clinton did well. Debate is her strong suit. Obama has improved his debating skills greatly, but he still takes too many words to make his point.

I didn't think ABC was unfair.  I thought  they were tough. I enjoyed the debate, but I don't  Have a major preference with the candidates. But I am leaning toward Hillary. I think she's tough. We need tough,imo.  

The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16vioxx.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

jao wright - You're not alone with respect to your view that Hillary is tough. My mother in law is a devout Hillary supporter. My mom started with Hillary - became lukewarm to her but she still defends her and likes her *toughness*.

I think Obama is tough - but he's not a street fighter tough - he is tough and smart. I also think he's much more honest, deep thinking and a visionary. I don't those qualities in Hillary. I'm just tired of the politics of the past and the scorched earth practices. JMO.

Hillary is a tooth and nail fighter,  a reckless attacker, kitchen-sink-thrower.  That won't win elections.   What wins elections is smart responses to reckless attacks, disarming point blank remarks that don't attack but neutralize your opponent.  That is a much harder thing to pull off, and Barry is a master at it.

I am not impressed by hostile tough women.  My grandmother was Mona Gorrilla.

nite folks - check it in the morning - daddy [care] day for me

good evening and goodnite...I think this is noteworthy.

Bush Defense Secretary Admits 9/11 Was Blowback

by Don Williams     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com
           


You won’t find the above headline anywhere else. Believe me, I've tried. Still, it's true. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 10, 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following jaw-dropping statement:

“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government made--mistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago.”

That’s an astonishing confession, even if mine was the only jaw that dropped. Gates is the first high official in the Bush administration to acknowledge what war critics have been lambasted for even suggesting. OK, he didn’t use the word “blowback,” but by definition, that’s what he’s talking about.  A certain radio commentator once all but called me a traitor for suggesting what Gates openly admits. Many others, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright most recently, have been denounced all over this country for suggesting 9/11 was caused by failed U.S. policy. Yes, Wright said much else as well. Nevertheless he took a hit for stating the same notion. 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_don_will_080416_bush_defense_secreta.htm 

Good morning, everybody

Never mind McCain.  He's a stand-in.  They're just having him read the lines for a revised script to see if they can "sell' the story. 

Barack is Fred Astaire.

Hillary is no Ginger Rogers.  Not Judy Garland.  Not Marilyn Monroe.  Not Katherine Hepburn.  ............................... 

Yes, there's a new story line in Washington.  It's Afghanistan.  Condi gave a speech at the Air university in Alabama where she talked about winning in Afghanistan.

I think they went into Iraq because they wanted a two-fer--an outpost in the middle East and control of the oil.  It was a plausibel scenario and there were lots of people willing to invest.  But, the oil industry, like the movie industry has more dry holes than gushers and Iraq is definitely dry. 

I didn't think ABC was unfair.  I thought  they were tough. I enjoyed the debate, but I don't  Have a major preference with the candidates. But I am leaning toward Hillary. I think she's tough. We need tough,imo.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The debate was a Clinton campaign event throwing the kitchen sink at Obama but he still won it.

Just thinking here, but there's a reason we don't have any good movies anymore.  Hollywood has been convincing itself for decades that the reason it's glory days are no more is because of TV, which has ruined the monopolistic studio system (built around stars) that used to rule.  They never would admit that what the old boys put out was stale and not interesting.  In any event, much of the 'talent' (scriptwriters, cameramen, grips) moved over to TV, which is funded by advertising rather than the people who put together investment packages.  The investors have moved wholesale into political campaigns, but the "talent" hasn't come along, mainly because they prefer regular pay-checks.  The movie industry was always a boom or bust business, with many more busts than booms.  It's not a co-incidence that Ronald Reagan was an actor.  It's not a co-incidence that the original Clinton campaign was directed by the Thomasons or that Bill Clinton has made lots of money with Burkle, who got his start in the movie business.  

To a certain extent what's happening to the politics business is a replay of the demise of the movie business as a result of the onslaught of "insurgents"--little people making little products like "Northern Exposure" and Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers.  youtube is the death knell of the mega movie industry.  The popularization of entertainment meets the popularization of politics.

Barack Obama is like Ingmar Bergman, with a smile.

Hollywood never did make movies out of real life.  Trying to run a real life enterprise like a movie has proved a disaster.  They were trying to run the invasion and conquest of Iraq like a movie set.  There are no do-overs in real life and the scenes on the cutting room floor are real dead and that's real blood on the hands of the pieces who have to clean up. 

How come Hillary Clinton doesn't mention that any of her stuff is Union Made in the USA.

If her stuff is union made and she's not telling anyone, that's either stupid or bashful of the fact.

But her stuff is probably made not made in USA<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 Don't know...probably because most candidates don't mention it?  Like I said...union made campaign literature is standard Dem policy....for the last 50 years.

pieces s/b people

need to change browser 

I'll think less of PA voters if they fall for old style attack politics and gotcha journalism, but as Mike says. look who is President.

the polls should ask what do they think of ABC as well as who won the debate

Charlie Gibson sunk to new lows letting George pull him down to his level.

but yes jao I suppose we should expect more of this all the way to November

if ABC had the Pope in a debate all of the questions would be bringing up pedophile priests by name

it really was pathetic

Barack Obama is like Ingmar Bergman, with a smile.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Swedish mother?

fred said (with typical loutish ignorance):

"Really?  You speak with such frivolous authority  - just to devalue my point.

Every item  at BO's website store says "UNION MADE IN USA"

Hillary's web site store does not say where her stuff is made."<<<<<<<<<<

Facts aren't frivolous fred....they're just facts.  Union made campaign stuff is standard Dem policy for the last 50 years.  Welcome to the Party:)

It was a big deal when Joe Lieberman omitted the union bug in his campaign materials in his 06 campaign:

"Heres a message for John Olsen,The AFL-CIO and every  union member in CT:

  Joe Lieberman,His Staff and his Campaign just  gave you the Biggest F*#K You anyone who runs as a Democrat can. They think so little of you and the entire Labor Movement that having a union Shop make their "Hug Buttons" wasn't important enough to even think about.Your endorsement was the only thing that mattered,not your workers not your families and not the Quality of work union workers guarantee."

============================================

standard Dem policy for 50+ years, fred.  Obama is a good Democrat.  Most folks here know that, of course. 

and Joe Lieberman, of course, isn't really even a Democrat.  Rumor has it he may be speaking at the Republican Convention this year.

regular readers will know where I am coming from on this one, but I really liked Obama's "paygo" answer

deficit spending isn't the answer to any problem, and neither are tax cuts

the fall of the dollar was nothing Obama had a part in but will be a two term problem to fix

the farm bill can be an example, increase food stamps by capping subsidies, the money is in there the priorities can be

^The Union Bug^

No Democrat seeking the support of organized labor would have their campaign materials made by non-union affiliates. 

Clinton's pledge of support for a nominee named Obama should be the headline of the night.

good thing food prices are so low because immigration officers are determined to shut down supplies

the question I have is how they pick which plant to raid, Bush campaign contributions by a competitor followed by a tip?

Mexican labor is an integral part of the nation's food supply.

good luck with your backyard chickens

Well, the Montgomery Advertiser report is much more succinct, but I will post the whole thing from the State Department site since that's not copy-righted and this is obviously a major policy shift.  Iraq does get a mention in the original.

View Video

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Thank you, General Lorenz, for that really wonderful introduction. I want to thank very much the members of the Board of Governors who are here. It’s my great privilege to accept the first ever honorary degree from Air University. I want to thank you too, General, for your leadership of this great institution, for adapting the education of the U.S. Air Force to the challenges of the 21st century. From the Wright brothers to the creation of the Air Corps Tactical School, the River Region of Alabama has been at the forefront of aeronautical innovation and training for nearly one century. Today, Air University is the intellectual and leadership center of the Air Force. And as an educator myself, I want you to know that I really value the mission of this institution.

I also know what good work the men and women of Air University do for this broader community. You make Montgomery proud, as Mayor Bright would be the first to acknowledge and thank you, Mayor, for being here. And then when a tornado left hundreds of people homeless in Prattville this February, Air University was there to help, and I know Mayor Byard can attest to that and thank you, Mayor, for being here. And when Hurricane Katrina devastated our Gulf Coast, Air University was critical to the relief effort. So, as a daughter of Alabama, I want to thank you.

It is a real pleasure to be back in Alabama. I grew up, as you know, about 90 miles down I-65 in Birmingham. Now, I know that there are a lot of people who may be a little new to Alabama, so I thought I would bring along a few helpful hints for you. Now, when you address people here in Alabama, you say “y’all,” but the plural of “y’all” is not “y’alls.” (Laughter.) If there are a lot of people, you say, “all y’all.” (Laughter.) There’s also nothing called unsweetened tea in Alabama. (Laughter.) It just doesn’t exist. But if you really want to understand Alabama and become a part of us, you really need only three words – "Roll Tide, Roll!" (Laughter, applause.) Now, I know there are a few misguided souls who say, “War Eagle, fight.”

General Lorenz, General Trey Obering, Secretary Beth Chapman, Dr. Bruce Murphy, distinguished guests, faculty, again, members of the Board of Visitors, ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to speak with you today about one of our most important missions and, indeed, one of our strategic opportunities, and that’s Afghanistan. But I want to thank all of you by helping to make possible what we are doing there. Much attention is paid to what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan and, of course, in Iraq. But we can never forget that our gains on the ground are possible because of our superiority in the sky. With our soldiers, sailors, and Marines, many of you, both active duty and reservists, have deployed to the Afghanistan theater, often for multiple tours. And we are winning in Afghanistan because of you.

Our Air Force is essential to that difficult form of warfare that we have had to learn, or perhaps I should say relearn, in recent years. We tend to think of counterinsurgency warfare as a ground-based activity. But again, our entire effort on the ground depends on the lift, precision strike, and reconnaissance that our Air Force provides. Furthermore, our Air Force is doing things to support our mission today that few people would have imagined in 2001. In Afghanistan, for example, six American airmen are leading Provincial Reconstruction Teams. And many more are on the ground helping to do things like build roads and guard facilities and support local agriculture.

You have been called to adapt to the demands of counterinsurgency. And I must say, the State Department has been called to adapt too. And it’s been hard. We’ve had to work not only to engage with states, but to help post-conflict societies build states. Our diplomats and development workers have had to use – have had to get used to new and dangerous operating environments far beyond our embassy walls. American civilians are learning how to be effective partners to our men and women in uniform, and you to us.

In recent years, America has developed a counterinsurgency doctrine that fuses the tools of war with the instruments of peace to help countries in conflict shape a future of freedom and opportunity for themselves. Our armed forces can defeat any adversary, but our civilian agencies must shape the political and economic context in which our gains will endure. We’re gaining the field experience to work with you to do this right.

There has been much talk, of late, about how we are doing in Afghanistan. Some of it has been positive, some of it has not. Today, I’d like to offer you my assessment. We now have a new strategic opportunity in Afghanistan, one that is a product of lessons learned from both successes and setbacks. So here is why we will win in Afghanistan.

Since 2001, there has been much that has been good and successful. First, and most importantly, we have seen that whenever the Afghan people have an opportunity to choose a course for their nation, they have voted overwhelmingly, and often at great personal risk and sacrifice, for a future of democracy and modernity and liberty under law, not for the medieval despotism of the Taliban. And we continue to have a strong partner in the elected government of President Karzai.

To support our Afghan partners, NATO is leading an International Assistance Force of 40 nations. The Afghan National Army, which we are training and equipping, is now at the forefront of many combat operations alongside international forces. Twenty-six Provincial Reconstruction Teams, including 14 led by allies, are helping our Afghan partners to turn improving security into better governance and development. The legitimate Afghan economy is now growing faster than any other in Central and South Asia, and it is benefiting more and more of Afghanistan’s citizens.

America’s commitment to Afghanistan is also bipartisan. Congress has played a leadership role in funding U.S. policy there. And thanks to the generosity of the American people, the United States has provided nearly $23 billion in assistance to Afghanistan, with our allies providing another 18 billion. This assistance has helped over 15 – over 5 million Afghan refugees to return to their homes. It is supporting the construction of critical infrastructure, like the national ring road, which is nearly 75 percent complete. And it is enabling 5 million Afghan children to get an education, including, for the first time ever, 1.5 million girls.

Our mission in Afghanistan has led to substantial progress. But at times, our many good programs have amounted to less than the sum of their parts. We have grappled with a lack of coherence among a broad coalition of international partners with disparate capabilities. This partly reflects a learning curve, as we have re-engaged a nation that America and our allies had neglected for too long: a country of inhospitable terrain, many ungoverned spaces, and a long history of poverty, misrule, and weak civilian institutions and civil war. Indeed, much of the work in Afghanistan could be more properly described not as reconstruction, but as construction.

This challenge has been made more difficult too by a determined enemy, the Taliban that has regrouped after its initial defeat, and has now turned to the tactics of pure terror to further its intolerant goals. The Taliban has benefited from regional turmoil on Afghanistan’s borders. And this has led many in Afghanistan and the region, some even in our alliance, maybe even some here at home in America, to question whether our coalition has what it takes to support Afghanistan’s long-term success.

In recent months, our Administration has looked closely at our policy in Afghanistan, both what we’re doing well, and what we can and should be doing better. We have studied the independent reports that have been issued. I went to Afghanistan myself in February, both to Kabul and out to Kandahar, to see the situation on the ground. And the President and I have recently conferred with our allies, at the NATO summit in Bucharest.

I am confident that we are now laying the foundation for a long-term commitment to the success of Afghanistan and this region. This commitment must be built on a bipartisan consensus that unites our Administration and the Congress today, but also future administrations and future congresses. This commitment must also be built on an international consensus among our allies and our Afghan partners. We must all understand and explain to our people that Afghanistan is not a peacekeeping operation. It is a hard counterinsurgency fight and the stakes could not be higher.

The United States and the entire free world have a vital interest in the victory of our Afghan partners over the Taliban, and the consolidation and empowerment of an effective democratic state. Successes in Afghanistan will roll back the drug trade in a country that produces 93 percent of the world’s opium and a great deal of its heroin. Successes in Afghanistan will advance our broader regional interests in combating violent extremism, resisting the destabilizing behavior of Iran, and anchoring political and economic liberty in South and Central Asia. And success in Afghanistan is an important test for the credibility of NATO.

Let no one forget, Afghanistan is a mission of necessity, not a mission of choice. That country must never again become a haven for the kind of terrorists who attacked America on September 11th, who have attacked our friends and our allies repeatedly, and who seek to do us all even greater harm. We cannot afford, either, to think whether we will choose to succeed in Afghanistan or succeed in Iraq. That is a false choice.

In both countries, the stakes are too high, the potential benefits of success too great, and the real costs of failure too catastrophic for us to think that these missions are zero terms. The real choice, and it is a choice befitting a great people, a great power, and a great democracy, is how to forge long-term commitment to succeed both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

This goal is not only essential, it is attainable. As in Iraq, our challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a traditionally strong enemy. The Taliban does not offer a political vision that most Afghans embrace when free to choose. The Taliban’s theory of victory is not to prevail on the battlefield, or to win hearts and minds. It is simply to undermine the elected Afghan government, fracture the international coalition, and outlast us.

Our theory of victory, and the counterinsurgency strategy that we are pursuing to achieve it, is far superior to the designs of our enemy. We can defeat the Taliban on the battlefield. But we will render the Taliban obsolete by supporting an effective, democratic Afghan state that can meet the needs of its people. Where we have been able to do this, for instance, in the east of Afghanistan, the Taliban is in retreat.

Earlier this month in Bucharest, we and our NATO allies renewed our commitment to Afghanistan. President Karzai announced that the Afghan National Army will assume responsibility for security in Kabul by August, and we are supporting our Afghan partners. The United States is deploying roughly 300 – 3,500 additional Marines. France is sending a battalion. This has enabled Canada, whose service in Afghanistan is an inspiration for NATO, to extend its deployment through 2011. Our allies pledged to deploy additional forces, with some deciding to enter conflict zones in the south, where we are especially grateful to Canada, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Australia for shouldering most of the hardest fighting. We will continue to press our allies to lift the caveats on their military forces.

The international community is also taking new steps to increase the coherence of our assistance effort in Afghanistan, including appointing Kai Eide as the United Nations Secretary General’s Special Representative. Our strategy directs resources toward the central pillars of counterinsurgency: protecting the people from the enemy by strengthening Afghan security institutions, connecting people to their government by improving governance and rule of law, and fueling economic and social opportunity through reconstruction and development.

On the security front, Afghans are eager to provide more of their own security, and our plan supports that. We and our allies must step up our efforts to train and equip the national army of Afghanistan. But we must also increase our efforts to help the Afghan National Police become a more professional force that can enforce the law and police the nation’s now porous borders.

At the same time, we and our allies are helping the Afghan Government to marry these security gains with good governance and economic development. Success depends on expanding the good work of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams lead our growing effort to help Afghan leaders, both national and local, to promote the rule of law, to strengthen their ministries, to deliver essential services like health and education to the people, and to lay a foundation for long-term private investment. Just last week, I had the pleasure of meeting with eight Afghan governors who play an important role in these efforts. These are local leaders who are beginning to give Afghan – Afghanistan’s government the means to deliver goods and services more directly to the people.

Within our counterinsurgency strategy, we and our Afghan partners must also expand our counternarcotics efforts. This has been one of the most difficult and vexing problems and, frankly, we’ve not found all the right answers. Yet, it is just as urgent as the fight against the insurgency, because the two are inextricably linked. There is an erroneous view that poppy in Afghanistan is mostly grown by poor farmers struggling to earn a living. In fact, over 70 percent of Afghanistan’s poppy will likely be grown this year in the Taliban’s stronghold, on vast narco-farms that benefit our enemies. These drug kingpins do not need alternative livelihoods; they need to be brought to justice.

We must step up our interdiction, eradication, and law enforcement campaign while helping those Afghan farmers who truly do need adjusting. In places where security and political will exist, this strategy has shown some promise. Two years ago, only six of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces were nearly or completely poppy-free. This year, it will likely be 26.

In everything we do, we must encourage the Afghan people, empower the Afghan Government, bolster our allies, and demoralize our enemies. But success is only possible if Afghan ownership grows over time and with greater integrity. Afghanistan’s democracy is already under attack from external enemies. It cannot allow corruption to undermine democracy from within. Institutions like the Independent Directorate for Local Governance are a good start and we are increasing our support for Afghan efforts to create a fair and functional system of justice.

Addressing Afghanistan’s regional context is also crucial to success. A new strategic opportunity comes from the transition to democracy that is underway in Pakistan, a nation that, like Afghanistan, America had too long neglected. Pakistan has been an ally in the war on terror since September 11th and yes, this has necessitated a strong program of military assistance and cooperation. After 2001, we supported President Musharraf’s efforts to chart a moderate, modern path for that nation.

Our engagement, however, has always been multidimensional. Since 2005, America has invested $300 million each year to help the Pakistani people by supporting health programs, educational reform, as well as the building of civil society. And when this progress was put at risk last November, we pushed hard, publicly and privately, for a return to civilian rule, an end to the state of emergency, and free and fair elections in February that were open to all of Pakistan’s leaders.

To be sure, terrorists exacted a high toll in innocent life trying to stop this election, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. But not only did their violent efforts fail to disrupt the voting and plunge the country into chaos; the Pakistani people dealt the forces of political extremism a crushing defeat at the polls, including in the frontier province. Indeed, the election dispelled the myth of rising extremism in Pakistani politics, proving that a moderate, democratic center is the country’s dominant political force. We salute the Pakistani people for courageously restoring their democracy.

Successful American engagement with a democratic Pakistan is vital to our national security and to the lasting success of South and Central Asia. In Pakistan, as in Afghanistan, we must help a democratic partner to meet the needs of its people and eliminate the conditions that feed continuing extremism. We will greatly expand our support for the efforts of Pakistani civilians to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law and to reinforce the foundation of every free society: good governance, judicial independence, a free media, health and education, good jobs and social justice. We will support Pakistan’s efforts to secure all of its people, and to wage a counterinsurgency fight against the violent people who still threaten Pakistan’s future.

Finally, the United States will support Pakistan’s efforts to develop fruitful links with its neighbors and with the community of responsible nations. This includes intensified Pakistani-Afghan dialogue on regional security, continued efforts to reduce tensions and reconcile with India, and closer economic integration with the nations of South and Central Asia.

We have a unique opportunity to foster the lasting security of a troubled region, a region that is of vital interest to our nation. From our partnerships with the newly democratic Pakistan and a free Afghanistan that is fighting the Taliban, not governed by it, to our growing strategic partnership with India and our improved relationships all the way across South and Central Asia, the United States is in a dramatically different and better position in this region than we were in 2001.

Though we and our friends face savage and determined enemies, I am confident that we will prevail, not by force of arms alone, but by the power and the promise of the values we share: the conviction that parents everywhere want their children to grow up in dignity, in liberty, and with limitless horizons. Success in Afghanistan and Pakistan will demonstrate that these values are more compelling than the spiritual poverty of suicide bombing.

The journey ahead will be difficult and often winding. Most certainly, the path toward democracy is never a straight line. We have hard work to do. But I am confident that we will succeed because we have done hard work before. I was fortunate to be the White House Soviet Specialist from 1989 to 1991 at the end of the Cold War. It doesn’t get much better than that. In fact, those were very heady days. But as we went through those extraordinary days, it was important to stop and to pay homage and to think about those who had set up the possibilities and laid the foundation for the victory of our values at the end of the Cold War.

In fact, when I would go to the White House, and now, when I go to the State Department, I think about the people in 1945, in 1946, and 1947 who built a firm foundation for democracy on the ruins of Europe and Asia at the end of World War II. I think about people who faced a situation in 1946 in which the Italian Communists won 46 percent of the vote, French Communists 45 percent of the vote. I think about those people who faced a 1947 in which Europe was still starving, 2 million Europeans still starving; that in 1947, saw civil war in Greece and civil conflict in Turkey; that in 1948, saw what we all thought would be the permanent division of Germany with the Berlin crisis; the Czechoslovak coup in which the Soviet Union snuffed out the last of liberty in Eastern Europe; in 1949, a Soviet Union that exploded a nuclear device five years ahead of schedule; and when the Chinese Communists won, only to have war break out on the Korean Peninsula in 1950.

Those were not small tactical setbacks. Those were huge strategic defeats for the victory of democracy and Western values in Europe and Asia. But somehow, someway, the people who led that fight, Marshall and Truman and Kennan and Acheson – somehow, everyday, they got up and they stayed true to their values and they believed in the power of our principles. And that is what permitted us to see, in 1989, in 1990 and ’91 the overcoming of a country 5 million men strong, 30,000 nuclear warheads, and spanning 12 different time zones without firing a shot.

That is the spirit with which we must meet this new historic transition and transformation because challenges like the ones that we faced at the end of World War II and the ones that we face now can only be overcome with optimism about the power of our principles and our values. And so, as I sat at NATO next to permanent representatives from Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary and the Baltic states in Latvia in 2006, I thought, had someone said there will be a NATO summit in Latvia in 2006, in 1946, people would have thought that they had lost their minds.

And so, I know that some Secretary of State will stand here in 10 years or 20 or 30, but most certainly, will stand here to say, of course the people of Iraq have triumphed in democracy; of course, the people of Afghanistan have triumphed in democracy. What else would you expect? Because the power of our principles is that it makes those things that one day seemed impossible seem, after, to have been inevitable.

Thank you very much and God bless you.

5:40 AM EDT

Phil -

I immediately thought of you when Barack said "pay as you go". 

5:41 AM EDT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate_33

Clinton changes course on Obama's electability

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

33 minutes ago

PHILADELPHIA - Hillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat.

"Yes, yes, yes," she said when pressed about Obama's electability during a campaign debate six days before the Pennsylvania primary.

Asked a similar question about Clinton, Obama said "Absolutely and I've said so before" — a not-so-subtle dig at his rival who had previously declined to make a similar statement about him.

...

cChalfonte 

we are running off the convention booklets in the office of one of the County Parties, but the material furnished by the State Party included in the packet all has the Union bug

in house printing was chosen to give us two days more time to be printer ready as we could do committee report printing as it was finished and I was thankful we had one more day to finish the platform

the volunteers are mostly Union members, but we did take a vote and got labor's blessing before we did it

you are right about that bug

yikes Monica

there are more reasons than copyright to provide snippet and link

this space is unfriendly to long posts

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is a necessary read

Monica

Condi's speech does lend proof to your assertions about what the Iraq War is all about doesn't it.?

good find

bbl

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels.""

14.

jao Wight
Thu, 04/17/08
In the debate Obama was asked some very direct tough questions. He answered them well. He will be asked worse questions than these in the fall if he's the nominee. I thought Clinton did well. Debate is her strong suit. Obama has improved his debating skills greatly, but he still takes too many words to make his point.

I didn't think ABC was unfair. I thought they were tough. I enjoyed the debate, but I don't Have a major preference with the candidates. But I am leaning toward Hillary. I think she's tough. We need tough,imo.

+++++++++++

jao I agree that Hillary did well as she usually does in debates and that she would be a good president if she gets the nomination. However, I disagree about the way the debate went. All they did was ask 'gotcha' questions about Rev Wright and flag pins and all the other nonsense that has been hammered to death by the tabloid/MSM. Obama kept trying to get to important issues like healthcare and the environment and the economy but the 'moderators' kept it on a Disneyesque level IMO and one which favored Hillary. It was a stupid debate and biased toward Hillary.

+++++++++++++

And I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONDIMUSTGO/TORTURE AD. DID ANYONE SEE IT ANYWHERE?????? IT WAS SUPPOSED TO RUN AFTER THE DEBATE. I GOT 30 SECONDS OF BLACK SILENCE. DFA WAS A SPONSOR OF THE AD.

I happened on Condi's speech by doing a regular check of Air Force in Google.  LoL

And then Gates comment (h/t Seashell) rang a bell.  loL Lol 

Washington Post Blasts 'Shoddy, Despicable' ABC; KO: 'Tabloid'
by turneresq [Subscribe]

Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:33:12 PM PDT

The response to the awful ABC debate from various internet blogs and commenters has been overwhelmingly negative. Now, the MSM is getting in on the act.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/17/...

+++++++++++++++++

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONDIMUSTGO AD DFA COSPONSORED THAT WAS S/B RUN AT END OF DEBATE????

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/16/...

Obama Release on Oklahoma Superdelegate Endorsement

Today, Oklahoma Superdelegate Reggie Whitten endorsed Barack Obama, citing his ability to unite Americans for change and his proven track record of standing up for middle class families and workers.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-oklahoma-superdelegate-endorsement/

I believe this is Obama's second superdelegate today.  And it is still early.

Condimustgo never aired that I saw but I went to get a glass of milk once. (if I was an annie supporter, I'd have gone for the Crown Royal)

ABC is worse than a communist propaganda machine. shut them down.

I have never seen anything so blatant in my life.

democracy? I don't think so.