From Beaver's post:

Are you implying that the current administration only represents certain people? No! If not, what is the implication in your statement "America is changing - and moving toward demonstrating the words in our Constitution . . .a government of the people, by the people, and for the people! ALL PEOPLE - ALL AMERICANS!" (???)

I’ll share one example to answer your question Beaver. In 1962, I could not vote in most Southern states, including Georgia! The words of the Constitution of the United States gave me that right. The state of Georgia did not. America has changed!! Where were you educated - and who was your US History teacher that you would even have the NERVE to ask that question? I don't think the current administration would be proud of representing Americans who think like you. . . although sometimes I wonder. I KNOW that your thought does not represent the thinking of all Republicans, southerners, or conservatives. You are truly unique.

Here is the result from South Carolina:

Obama 56% WINNER!
Hillary 22%
Edwards 18%

Here is the result from South Carolina of 100 years ago:

Obama 56%
Hillary 22%
Edwards 18% WINNER!

Yes We Can

Brilliant!!

speak up. Thanks for sharing their views. I like Ron Paul too. My vote will go for Obama.

I've been struggling with dial-up the past few days (DSL down) so I'm missing all the minute-by-minute internet reports and blog comments.

About the only thing Obama and Ron Paul have in common is they are both strict isolationists so they agree on Iraq. On about any other major issue, they are at polar opposites.

NUK

How can anyone like both Obama and Ron Paul? As you stated, they have absolutely nothing in common except for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

That would require a very limited knowledge of where the candidates stand (at minimum). Quite a strange combination to support.

On another note, I have read many of your blogs and think our views are very similar; however, I thought I read you were anti-choice/Pro-Life, am I correct?

It seems there are some very nasty, overly zealous, bloggers on here. You would think one would have some idea of what they were talking about before they unloaded in such a close minded rage at the other bloggers.

P.S. Can someone tell me how to add an avatar please?

Well, I'm not impressed with Barack's talking much. I do think Hillary will self destruct before the election on November and throw it to McCain, but I can't point to one thing she or Barack have said that was inspirational to me.

Now, maybe it has to do with race, where such a proud black man is doing well, I don't know, but name one thing definite he has said--other than get out of the war soon.

It certainly would be and interesting time to watch the transition in D.C. next January with Barack in town to take over!

Can you say Speaker Lewis? WOW!

Caroline's endorsement is the icing on the cake! Obama's inspiring speech - and her explanation for her decision to endorse Obama is so encouraging. Thanks Hack for sharing what you're hearing among your fellow heroes! The democratic candidates are all answering the concerns of the American people - and some of the Republican candidates are doing the same. It's time to put partisan politics aside - and get our country back on the right track of it’s role as a compassionate world leader with the strength to maintain peace.

Obama is starting to look more and more like a Kennedy, in terms of his ability to inspire and his sense of direction. He has kept his campaign positive and on point, and he made it clear that his campaign is not about black versus white, but about past versus future. That was absolutely the right thing to say after the results in South Carolina.

I'm also very pleased to see that McCain is the leading Republican candidate. He has had the courage to speak the truth, even when it almost cost him his career. He spoke out against the conduct of the war 3-4 years ago, when that was wildly unpopular among Republicans, and he defended the troop surge this fall, while Mitt Romney hemmed and hawed. He also came out clearly and emphatically against torture, including waterboarding. He has real integrity to his core.

Either one, Obama or McCain, will be a vast improvement over the current administration.

Was the absolute best speech I've seen so far this political season. I hope you don't mind me comparing him to a white guy (LOL) but I have to say he reminded me of Bobby K. Wow! He blew me away! I was "amen-ing" in the middle of it and when he got wound up at the end I was blown away. Whoever the Republican nominee may be, they better hope they don't have to share the stage with Obama or speak after him. He was terrific!

YES WE CAN!!!

Jeff,

You are right Obama’s speech did sound a bit like Bobby Kennedy’s.

Obama’s speech writer Jon Favreau said, “I actually read a lot of Bobby” Kennedy.
for inspiration.

I do agree that Obama seems to be able to give a speech with more conviction than anyone else running.

Having the ability to deliver a great speech doesn’t automatically make him the best candidate.

It will take more than a great speech to get me to vote for him.

I am a small business owner and fail to see anything that Obama or the rest of the candidates, Democrat or Republican have to offer me.

Rising health insurance cost is a major concern to me.

Each year I look at the amount that we pay for employee health insurance and wonder how I’m going to be able to stay in business.

Every candidate has an insurance plan.

No candidate will state the actual cost to the employer.

Where’s the beef?

Obama took more than 80 percent of African-American vote, polls show.
He had support of nearly a quarter of white voters; Clinton, Edwards split remainder
Polls showed Obama winning majorities across nearly all demographic groups
Clinton won among voters older than 65, Obama won the vote of 18- to 64-year-olds

These percentages show that the coalition that the Obama campaign has organized represents AMERICANS - not just 'black' Americans. Change is what is interesting. Jesse Jackson DID NOT have a coalition of all Americans in the South. The 18-64 year old voters are the future of America - and they went for Obama. . .change. I'm hearing more and more southern Republicans thinking about voting their bank account - and the value of the dollar in 2008. I respect - and I'm beginning to understand the viewpoint of southern Republicans (the old Dixie-crats) - but I think the younger generation is putting the past behind them - and looking to the future. We'll see. Race is not the issue of the 18-64 year old citizens. The issues are economics, health insurance, the war, and education. . .and our image to the rest of the world. .. . HOPE!

It's gonna take a lot more that a good speech over laden with the word "Hope" to win the election. He'll sell every tax-paying (Note tax paying citizens, not all citizens, just the ones that are working hard for a living and trying to better themselves through hard work. I have to emphasize this for Hack's sake, because sure enough he will attack this post with everything he has.) citizen down the river in order to pander to "the poor" so that they can have "free" (read, funded by hard working TAXPAYERS) health insurance.

Wake up people! The Democrats want MORE government in our lives. It doesn't matter who - Obama, Clinton, Edwards. They all want a socialist society funded by the worker bees for the benefit of the lazy. They don't want the "poor" to have to fund their own insurance, no, we can't have that. They have to have cell phones and "rims" for the Escalade.

Obama couldn't even bring himself to admit that Reagans supply side economic policies and less government worked. No, he backed down as soon as Hillary put him up against the wall about it. He might as well have just put on a dress and called it a day, cause he looked like an absolute wimp.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

People would mistake him for a Republican.

He Feels Pretty!

Hello JeffC. It is confusing whenever I see a Democrat criticizing a Republican for either being gay or engaging in an activity that Democrats also engage in.

The same is true whenever I see Republicans criticize Democrats for adultery, or for being openly gay.

It seems that the only real difference is that Democrats rally behind their "immoral" candidates and Republicans either run from theirs or ask them to resign. (i.e. Mark Foley Vs. Gerry Studds)

You seem like a bright young fellow, can you help me understand this bi-partisan hypocrisy please?

Ah, 1958, a great year! I really appreciate that “young fellow” comment!

Yes I’ll be happy to explain but first I have to say that you cannot point to a single instance of a Democrat criticizing a Republican for being gay. And that is the essence of it.

It is the hypocrisy.

It’s the Newts going after BC on a sex scandal while committing adultery at the same time. (Yeah, yeah, I know it was the lies but that was like getting Capone for taxes. We were way far down the sex scandal road before there was any testifying under oath). It’s Bob Barr spouting family values with his fourth wife. It’s the condemnation of gays by gays who take a wide-stance against it in the law. It’s Strom having sex with a 15 year old black girl. It’s Jimmy Swaggart. It’s Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde being adulterers while condemning Clinton. It’s Rush on Oxy. It’s Paul Ingram, Jon Matthews, John Hathaway, Kevin Coan and Keith Westmoreland. It’s Bill O and the phone sex.

Sure Democrats have problems like this too but they don't spend their lives trying to legislate against it while engaging in it.

Can you really point to a single instance of a Democrat criticizing a Republican for being gay? Or is every instance you are going to find it is the hypocrisy being attacked. I don’t mean a comedian who happens to be a Democrat. Find me a Democratic official somewhere who has ever criticized a Republican for being gay. On the other hand, the list of Republicans condemning people is almost limitless.

Is it really bi-partisan hypocrisy or single party hypocrisy?

Hi JeffC and others. Lest you think otherwise at the end of this post - I am NOT a Republican - Nor and I a Democrat.

JeffC asks: "Can you really point to a single instance of a Democrat criticizing a Republican for being gay?" Yes, I can JeffC, you. I asked it below your blog about Rudy wearing a dress and insinuating that a democrat doing so would be thought to be republican. You are a democrat, you criticized Rudy JollyJohny for wearing a dress. That is at minimum inconsistent and at worse hypocritical. Unless I missed the part where you point out your criticizing of Barny Frank for sexually related behavior at least as unprofessional as wearing a dress? So JeffC what gives democrats like you the 'high road'?

Regardless, that was not the crux of my blog and the question I attempted to ask. Being gay was only a part/sample of the question and I never limited it to "Democrat Officials". I apologize for failing to be more succinct.

I will re-iterate and re-state my question in hopes of eliciting a response more specific to my (genuine) curiosity:

"It is confusing whenever I see a Democrat (in the above case - you) criticizing a Republican for (either being gay or) engaging in an activity that Democrats also engage in."

I say again, why do I seem to constantly read people (both democrats and republicans) criticizing others while turning a blind eye to the same behavior in their own party.
_____________________________________________________
As further evidence, I will site your own reply:

"It’s the Newts going after BC on a sex scandal while committing adultery at the same time. (Yeah, yeah, I know it was the lies but that was like getting Capone for taxes. We were way far down the sex scandal road before there was any testifying under oath). It’s Bob Barr spouting family values with his fourth wife. It’s the condemnation of gays by gays who take a wide-stance against it in the law. It’s Strom having sex with a 15 year old black girl. It’s Jimmy Swaggart. It’s Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde being adulterers while condemning Clinton. It’s Rush on Oxy. It’s Paul Ingram, Jon Matthews, John Hathaway, Kevin Coan and Keith Westmoreland. It’s Bill O and the phone sex."
______________________________________________

Since Bill Clinton is an adulterer as well as Newt Gingrich, why didn't you name him as well? Are you saying that Democrats do not promote monogamist marriages? You are insisting that Newt be consistent in his criticism while you yourself are not?

This then is the crux of my question.
____________________________________________
Bob Barr promotes family values and you criticize him for being married multiple times.... so are you saying that Ted Kennedy who currently lives with his second wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and promotes himself as the 'Women's Rights Champion, has better values - you failed to mention him but openly criticized Bob Barr. As far as I know, Bob Barr was never responsible for the death of any of his secretaries.
____________________________________________
When you criticize "Strom having sex with a 15 year old black girl." you fail to mention Gerry Studds and his 16 year old male page, whenever you say "It’s Jimmy Swaggart" you ignore Marion Berry, and his crack use with a prostitute, or the dishonesty of a host of other preachers. By the way, did you know that Jimmy Swaggart is a life-long Democrat?
_____________________________________________
When you name "Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde being adulterers while condemning Clinton" you fail to mention they resigned - but Clinton didn't. Furthermore, you , a self described democrat, fail to mention the corruption of you very own Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or John Murtha - why not also criticize those democrats?
______________________________________________
Again, I won't bother to go tit for tat with radio personalities like Bill O'Reilly or Rosie O'Donnell. I could ... but I won't. Rather, I would like to know what makes democrats (and republicans for that matter) single out the behavior of some while turning a blind eye to others.
________________________________
As for hypocrisy, is it hypocritical for William Jefferson to head the Ways and Means committee?
________________________________
Harry Reid has been an outspoken critic of Tom Delay.

He insisted in his guilt and was one of the reason's Tom Delay resigned - some of those charges have since been dropped - although I feel sure he is a crook - almost as much as I am sure Harry Reid is.

Yet, Harry Reid will not return campaign contributions he received during the past five years from lobbyists and clients associated with Jack Abramoff despite calling for Delay's resignation ... hummmm apparently there's only an appearance of impropriety when Abramoff is giving money to Republicans.

Here are a few facts JeffC: Delay had "close ties" but what about Harry Reid?

Well, would having your "legislative counsel and assistant finance director of your Senate campaign" being hired by Abramoff suffice?

What if that same "legislative counsel and assistant finance director of your Senate campaign" then held a fund-raising reception for you at Abramoff's office? Would that be "close ties"?

Maybe that's not close enough. What about this:

Federal officials are investigating whether Abramoff, a lobbyist, bilked millions of dollars from Indian gaming tribes.

Reid received $6,500 from Abramoff's associates at the Greenberg Traurig law and lobbying firm from 1999 through 2004, The Washington Post reported Friday.

During the same period, Reid received $40,500 from Indian tribes that were Abramoff clients, the paper reported based on research of federal records.

Abramoff, pled guilty on January 3, 2006, to three criminal felony counts in a Washington, D.C., federal court related to the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials.

Reid received his contributions while serving on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Is there any hypocrisy in this case JeffC?

The following day he pled guilty to two criminal felony counts in a separate federal court, in Miami, related to his fraudulent dealings with SunCruz Casinos.
____________________________________________
I will assume you are aware of the Obama/Rezco and Clinton/Hsu problems.
_____________________________________________

I like that Tom Delay is gone....I know his ties to Abromoff stunk to high heavens, just like these democrats who received money from Abramoff:

Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
___________________________________________

Let me simplify my argument further: If Democrats stand against racism, but have Robert Byrd of West Virginia .... well, you get the point. By the way, is he a "flip-flopper" like Romni or did he "grow" like Clinton?
____________________________________________

Again - my question, which runs both ways, is WHY do Republicans and Democrats have selective outrage? What is it that makes people blind to misdeeds on their selective 'half' of the government?

In my humble opinion, until people site and act upon outrage and hypocrisy in both major 'parties', we will never clean up our government and the corruption that permeates the two party system.
___________________________________________
So, care to answer again? Or, would anyone else please tell me what makes all of you 'two party' supporters blind to the misdeeds of your own?

(Which by the way seems to me as an Independent to be more left wing hypocrisy that right wing....although there is more than enough to go around on both sides.)
__________________________________________
And finally, for all of those new-found anti-war activists:

Bush Lied, people died!!! Then so did these Democrats:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

________________________________________

I will allow the readers to decide if hypocrisy exists in both of the two major parties or, as JeffC contends, just one.

You completely misunderstood my post. I couldn’t care less if Rudy wears a dress. I posted it as a joke because I knew how much beav would “like” it. Where was the criticism? The reason its funny is because the Republicans are so sanctimonious.

“Since Bill Clinton is an adulterer as well as Newt Gingrich, why didn't you name him as well?”

Because Bill wasn’t trying to impeach Newt for doing the exact same thing that he was doing.

“Bob Barr promotes family values and you criticize him for being married multiple times.... so are you saying that Ted Kennedy who currently lives with his second wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and promotes himself as the 'Women's Rights Champion, has better values”

No. Ted wasn’t trying to legislate my lifestyle like the sanctimonious Barr was (although I like his stands on personal freedom.)

“When you criticize "Strom having sex with a 15 year old black girl." you fail to mention Gerry Studds and his 16 year old male page”

Gerry didn’t spend his whole life condemning black people, supporting racial segregation and condemning race mixing. Like Strom did. The whole time he was covering up the fact he had a mixed race illegitimate child. It’s the hypocrisy.

“When you name "Bob Livingston and Henry Hyde being adulterers while condemning Clinton"

Clinton didn’t spend his life intruding into people’s bedrooms with his investigations, condemnation of their lifestyles and legislation. It’s the hypocrisy.

“Again, I won't bother to go tit for tat with radio personalities like Bill O'Reilly or Rosie O'Donnell.”

Rosie doesn’t devote her shows to condemning the actions of others like BillO does. She doesn’t write books about what great family values she has while engaging in phone sex with a loofah.

There is a difference between having close ties and even being financially involved with someone on the one hand and engaging in felony fraud like Abramoff did and pled guilty to. Delay was indicted and his staff people have pled guilty to felonies. If Reid is guilty send him to jail. If Jefferson is guilty, send him to jail. Suits me. Investigate them! Suits me. But, having a list of politicians who raised money from a lobbyist who turns out to be a crook in an unrelated case is meaningless. Are you alleging that Abramoff bribed or bought unlawful influence from Dianne Feinstein, Charles S. Robb, Barbara Boxer, Fritz Hollings, Patrick Kennedy, Max Cleland or the others on your list? If not, then what is the point of the list?

And back to your original assertion, which was the one I was answering, “It is confusing whenever I see a Democrat criticizing a Republican for either being gay..” I was right. Democratic politicians don’t do that. I’ll grant that if you take 100 million Democrats you’ll find some that will. The point is that Republican politicians and their major promoters do this kind of thing for a living. When they get caught, it’s the hypocritical nature of their actions which is so funny and leads to their downfall.

Some of what you allege is illegal activity. If so, throw them in jail! I have absolutely no problem with that.

I’ll leave Iraq for another time. Bush decided to go in where every other administration looked at all your evidence and decided not to. Wise decisions. Its Bush’s war and Bush’s legacy.

Oh my, where do I start? First, I apologize for not knowing that your dig at Republicans because of Rudy's "dresscapades" was in humor.

Now let me back up and try to sell you on the middle yet again.

If a person criticizes another person (i.e., you criticizing let's say 'Newt') for criticizing a person (let's say Clinton) and then learns that both men (say Newt and Clinton) are both guilty of the same 'offenses' (adultery - cheating on a spouse) and then supports the one (Clinton) while simultaneously condemning the other (Newt) - you don't feel that that's hypocritical?

You want to know what keeps me from being party affiliated? The close-minded thinking that is so rampant among Republicans and Democrats.

This is how I think JeffC: (and I suppose we will just have to disagree.)

Newt cheats on his wife = Scumbag
Clinto cheats on his wife = Scumbag

Now JeffC, we can of course argue nuances:

Clinton Lied, Newt is a hypocrite, Newt resigned, Clinton was impeached ... yada, yada, yada, but for me - Clinton and Newt are SCUMBAGS.

I guess I am just a simple man. I kind of feel like if your wife can't trust you neither can I.

Of course - as long as people want to live in 'Nuanceland', there will always be defenders of the behavior we see day in and day out by the elected public officials of the two major parties.

I do not argue nuances as I do not know whether finger wagging and lying is worse than being a hypocrite - I despise both equally.

Like Sniffles5, I will just let the readers decide.

You sound more for Newt than Clinton!

Newt did his tricks against three women and left them all except the last one (yet).
Clinton kept his one. He was found not guilty of violating the constitution.

Anyway Washington is full of "scumbags" (men) for those reasons, and scumwomen.

Lying under oath and getting caught because they wanted to catch him was Clinton's problem. Just don't take oaths and you will be ok!

No Sir. I am not a fan of the "Vast right wing" either my friend. I am afraid extreme points of view disturb me and are an indication, in most cases, of emotive thinking.

If we are talking about hypocrisy and you claim that my pointing out examples is de facto hypocritical then so be it.

You ask: “If a person criticizes another person (i.e., you criticizing let's say 'Newt') for criticizing a person (let's say Clinton) and then learns that both men (say Newt and Clinton) are both guilty of the same 'offenses' (adultery - cheating on a spouse) and then supports the one (Clinton) while simultaneously condemning the other (Newt) - you don't feel that that's hypocritical?”

You just threw in that part about me “supporting” Clinton’s action. I never gave him one iota of support in his actions. You made it up and it is precisely your implication of my “support” which would indeed make the above hypocritical on my part.

I was pointing out that Newt was being hypocritical condemning Clinton while doing the same thing.

Here is my definition: hypocrisy - insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.

We were not, to my knowledge, discussing whether they were scumbags. I would have agreed with you there.

In a previous post you have equated some types of criminal activities with hypocrisy and now you have characterized being a scumbag as hypocrisy. Different words have different meanings, which is kind of the point in their being different, so I included my definition for you.

You say: "Here is my definition: hypocrisy - *insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have."

Since we can both agree Mr. Clinton is a scumbag (I love common ground), I have to ask, did you vote for him the second term or did you vote for Bush?

I wouldn't think voting for someone you think is a scumbag would qualify as being 'sincere' about your beliefs. So I guess you supported "W"?

Was there a time when you supported Clinton only to discover he was in fact - a scumbag? That would mean you were wrong about him - an actual human error. Do you think there are Republicans who supported Newt until they learned the same?

Is it fair to say that you were 'sincere' whenever you said:

"Obama can’t wear a dress" that "People would mistake him for a Republican." and "He Feels Pretty!"??

Or were you being "*insincere and pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have."?

Are you saying that despite only criticizing Republicans in your blogs you feel the same about Democrats but simply neglected to name any of them (other than Jimmy Swaggart, whom you identify as a Republican) and that those beliefs are *sincere?

Or are you saying that you really do NOT have the belief that Rudy wearing a dress is a bad thing and you were just being "*insincere and pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have"?

C) Or that you really do believe men in dresses are usually mistaken as Republicans and that is your *sincere belief ... but not a biased one?

Or perhaps men in dresses are fine as long as they are not Rudy or a Democrat?

that you are misrepresenting me and, as you have said earlier, let's just agree to leave it up to he readers to decide.

I have been blogging here a long, long time and I really believe that you were the only person here that did not grasp the fact that I was being sarcastic by responding to the beav here with a posting of Rudy in his dress.

By the way, the "He feels pretty" was the title of the video so I cannot take credit for that. But let me say this in your support (if you are truly only three days new) my posting "Obama can’t wear a dress. People would mistake him for a Republican" was funny (I think) precisely because I posted it and any hypocrisy implied or inferred added to the sarcasm. Everyone here who has followed my ravings got it.

If you're familiar with my postings, I have to say you missed it. If you are new, WELCOME! And I look forward to our future clashes.

And anyway, Rudy looks terrible in those shoes!

Thanks Jeff but I think that we will agree much more than disagree. I look forward to chatting with you. I really just like to stir the pot!

Your list of hypocrites in the republican party could have gone on for pages!

One big one for instance is Bill Bennett, a compulsive gambler, who preaches constantly about conservatism!! Of course, El Rushbo and dope.

Then there is our friend Giuliani!!!!!

I could go on and capture time on your dime, but I do agree with you.

Democrats usually admit transgressions, not always, and just keep doing it, like republicans, but don't try to tell everyone else NOT to!

You are correct about this one. It is a fluke brought on by one of our most embarrassing states.

Jesse won South Carolina caucus' not primaries. In this primary, Obama won more votes than were ever cast in a SC caucus. The Democrats more than doubled their votes. Obama won every age group and every demographic except women, even tying among white men. If you don't think thats historic, well, we must certainly disagree.

Obama's victory in Iowa truly crossed all lines in a BIG way and was something historic. SC was simply 8 out of 10 black voters voting for the black candidate, and the white people voting as a block(75%) for a white candidate, only there were 2 instead of one so they split the vote. since the turnout was a 50/50 mix, the outcome being split right along racial lines alone shows why Obama had a very convincing victory.

You give me the liberals, blacks, the Hispanics (which the Republicans have so generously driven into the Democratic Party) and 25% of the whites and I'll give you a Democratic President, even if he has polka dots.

The black community - or any community resents being taken for granted. The Clintons will always be respected for their stand for minority rights, education, etc. The attitude that Clinton could walk into South Carolina's black community and deliver it to Hillary was a gross miscalculation. People are voting for Obama because of his sharing of his expertise in all communities. His time has come. Thank you Clintons - welcome Obama! It's still a race - but I think it's bringing out the best in Americans. I'd rather hear an 'Obama' giving the State of the Union speech. What an orator!

Written by paid help.

What makes you think he or any of the others will do anything to help you, personally? What specifically have they done in the past for you.
It is all politics, not color!

What specifically have they done in the past for you?

They freed my grandfather - using politics and a war. The politics had 'something' to do with 'color' - as did the 'Jim Crow' laws and segregation that followed. Politics are a part of our existence from the moment that we are born. The 'paid help' , if they're any good at their trade, put the ideas of the speaker into logical sequence - and uses the passion and belief of the speaker in the written piece. However - it's up to the speaker to 'deliver' the work with sincerity. Obama 'delivers' with sincerity IMO

Suppose that will happen in OHIO, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS, etc?
NO!

I'd vote for Bas before I'd vote for Hillary.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

You would vote for one of those "yellow" or "blue DOGS" first!!

You would vote for Saddam first!

You would vote for Usama Bin Laden first!

You are narrow minded!

And you're an idiot but I wa$n't going to bring it up. It's obviou$ly not your day to u$e the brain, who get$ it today, dollar or d.$mith

I yam what I yam....Popeye

If real brains were needed on here none of us would qualify!

Obama is back in the race!
A smashing victory, first place!
Clinton’s now desperation,
As they cross this great nation
Will almost certainly be a disgrace.

Obviously you want Edwards as the candidate!

Why don't you just do like me and support John McCain, a non-crooked person!

I'm afraid Edwards just can't make it.

I like Obama and I don't think Edwards (who I also like) has a chance to win at this point. The "they" in my limerick referred to the two Clintons. If we nominate Clinton and y'all nominate McCain I'm probably going to go with you. Unless he picks Leiberman as his VP.

McCain desperately needs Florida to show he has a chance and more importantly, to help him raise money. The Feb. 5 primaries are mostly blue states and mostly party voting only. Probably this helps Mitt because he can target his ads and because independents can't vote for McCain. McCain got some terrific endorsements in FL yesterday and with the military and retirees has as good a shot at a win as he can hope for.

So I'm pulling for McCain and watching Edwards strategy with interest. He may actually end up with enough delegates to decide the democratic winner.

I'll vote for Edwards unless McCain is nominated.

If anybody except McCain is nominated, I'll vote democrat. Even Obama.

Surely, and mercifully, Giuliani won't be nominated! One Nixon is enough.

One Reagan is also enough as far as Romney is concerned.

If not for Edwards right now, the race would be tight or in favor of Clinton, no doubt.

it would be a huge boost to Edwards (and his supporters) if he could do well in those primaries...sort of "showing late" as it were. That would hopefully translate into some sort of power at the convention, particularly if Hillary/Obama have not sowed up the nomination by then. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.