Left concern about HRC is NOT "hatred"...it's about what we stand for as a party and a country

[DFW]

222. Lots of unnecessary bile here. As long as it remains issue-based, we're all on safe ground

The moment it gets emotional, we're not.

The moment Netanyahu's military tactics in Gaza become a "slaughter campaign," for example, it already gets emotional. I really dislike Netanyahu, but if Belgium started sending rockets over the border to shell French civilians, I'd understand Hollande doing most anything necessary to stop it, even though I consider Hollande to be a full-blown ass (I'm in France once a week for work). Netanyahu could have a quarter million Gazans dead by tomorrow morning if he wanted to. THAT is a slaughter campaign.

Also, while the Iraq vote had catastrophic consequences, before the invasion, as I remember it, the vote authorized action in the case it proved absolutely necessary. It never did. Joschka Fischer, the Green foreign minister of Germany at the time, publicly told Rumsfeld that Germany would have no part of an invasion of Iraq unless Rumsfeld convinced him of the necessity of it. Fischer addressed Rumsfeld to his face in English, which he does not speak fluently, and said flat out, "You haven't convinced me." So I put the onus squarely on the back of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They violated the language of the authorizing vote. The invasion was not necessary, and they knew it, while hiding and falsifying the evidence. It is for this reason I have always supported their being brought up on charges at The Hague, not Democrats who unwittingly enabled them.

For the record, I concur with Howard Dean's stance that "younger blood" needs to step up for the job of President. Howard will be 66 this November, and told me that he considers himself too old for the job. He said Obama was about the right age when he took office, and Obama wasn't even 50 then. Another friend of mine went out on a limb and implored Hillary not to run on the air during her show on MSNBC. Gutsy move, for which she caught quite a lot of flak from guess who. I'm not sure I would have said it that way on national television, but I stand behind her willingness to say it, as she stated her case in a calm rational manner. The clip was posted here on DU at the time, if I recall correctly.

On the other hand, if Hillary really does decide to go for it, I agree that she has a good chance at the nomination, and upon winning that, a good chance at the Oval Office. However: a presidential run these days is a demeaning, exhausting ordeal. I know Hillary wants to be president. I am not convinced she wants to be, one more time, a CANDIDATE for president. We do have other options (O'Malley is just one, Ohio's Brown is another), and the Republicans have only certifiable nut cases and a third Bush (so far--though don't expect it to remain that way if they feel they really have a chance).

So, support Hillary if you are so inclined, support someone else (and I consider "anyone else" to be a legitimate choice if rationally backed) if you are so inclined.

But going for each others' throats on a thread like this one, besides being incredibly premature, is really REALLY counter-productive, although that's just my personal view.