doesn't make much difference to my ears, but then why do it at all. I copied it from somewhere and now forget...

.

"Have the Ghost of Marcel Marceau exorcised"

The perfect way to write this punctuation mark is to overlap the symbols so that the dots line up. This can be done well on a standard typewriter. When on a stupid computer with the interrobang missing from the standard characters in the fontset, it's this: ?! (I know, unicode has it, but I'm too lazy...)

...........(_!_)........Cheers!

So the Republicans look at their candidates as a whole, including each candidate's electibility, and then decide which one they like best. While the Dems "prefer electability over principles". Is that how it is?

I really get a kick out of Republicans telling me, a Democrat, what I think and how I arrive at my conclusions. If you really believe we are willing to sacrifice our principles for electibility then you don't understand us at all and should stop pretending to.

Check out the front and center image link

but my problem with Hilary is that she won't fight the media narrative hard enough. It's time to start destroying newspapers and other news organizations that lie to us when their corporate masters tell them to.

sounds good to me too. If each administration is going to continue dropping the signal/noise ratio the way the last 2 have, I'm gonna start pushing to have the capital moved somewhere else and let DC just collapse on itself.

"Packaging herself that way" -- all of her stated policies are centrist, so's her voting record, and Bill was centrist in office. The record speaks for itself, and so do her flaws...no reason to play the hypocrisy card IMO.

I believe the Bush people thought they were doing the right thing, and that because they were doing the right thing they were justified in cherry picking and creating an impression of certainty that was never there. I further think they believe(d) that's what good leadership is: projecting certainty and not looking back. The real mistake they made was not playing fast & loose with the facts but *failing* to convince the country not only that the war was necessary, but that the long haul etc. was necessary. They didn't really lead, in other words, they just wrangled the minimum support to get a go, then trusted blind luck to make things work out. They also refused to face the "what happens after" question, their second grave mistake, even though people like me as well as people whose opinions matter in the administration hollered warnings about insurgency, civil war, & regional instability from the get go. This wasn't stopped clock guesswork either -- it was bleeding fricking obvious what the postwar was likely to look like. So, "lie" is shorthand for "refused to face obvious truths or respect other valid points of view." Good work if you can get it, but unfortunately as we can see, it damaged their ability to govern.

First off, the way Bush and Co. went casting about for a casus belli may not have been out and out mendacious, but it led them to see what they wanted to see. Worse was simply discounting Blix when he said that he wasn't finding much of anything. The result has been that the American public is far less willing to put up with the Iraq debacle than it might have been and the entire planet is leery of believing the U.S. even when President A. is essentially saying, "I'm building a bomb and you can't stop me!"

As for whether or not Hillary is a leftist in centrist clothing, I think that a good indicator that the Usual Suspects* are screaming that she is neoliberal Zionist corporate lackey. As I noted below, she's one of the only Democratic candidates offering a responsible pull-out from Iraq.

As for the issues that made her such a lighting rod back in the 90's, I will freely admit I find her ideas of the responsibilities of the State as opposed to the family to be a bit disquieting, but I think that the positives outweigh the negatives. As for the biggie, national Health Care, her plan, while something of a bureaucratic monstrosity was *not* a social democrat-style single payer system. It wasn't even a Canadian style system where doctors more or less stay independent and the government cuts them a check. It was essentially a system to supplement the current patchwork of private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Someone should write a concern Troll diary in the same vein, decrying the loss of the pre-'94 sensible Republican opposition that might could keep President Hillary on the straight and narrow once she takes office.

I don't hate Hillary with white hot intensity, but I sure dislike her and I don't trust her instincts or like her program.

And I vote Democrat, and contribute. And no, I've never given a dime to MoveOn.org.

But I didn't vote for Hillary in New York just now when I had the chance. Like I said, I really don't like her. And I'm not alone. It's not just the crazies on dKos. The environmental movement doesn't trust her, for the most part.

I'm hoping for Gore, but I think the probability he will run is less than 1/3. October will tell us, one way or the other.

And I dare the Dems to run him. The last plaintiffs' PI lawyer to win the presidency was who? And the last one to lose? (Hint: all of his clients were bald.)

Seriously, good points on HRC. Is it ultimately about winning the presidency, or losing it because you nominated a candidate who's too far from the center?

The folks who hate her with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns are the folks who wouldn't vote for any Democrat.

This is entirely incorrect in as much as you're talking about a significant percentage of the Democratic party. Diaries such as this are quite common on DailyKos.

Edited: s/half/significant percentage