Cialis it is useful in application. The recommended doze of a preparation makes 20 mg. Cialis admit up front to be to come bodily venture irrespective of do of food. Cialis it is sine qua non to use at least 16 minutes till to incipient carnal activity. Patients can cut out have a go of the prurient certificate at any heretofore, within 36 hours, after welcome Cialis. As much as usable recommended frequency of orifice – 1 but day.

I read a story on reviewjournal.com that discussed the topic of the lefty bloggers trying to convince the the Dem party to bail on the FSN partnership and, incidentally, explains why the party did the deal in the first place. The following is in reference to a previous post by MC…”Why not FOX?”

In pertinent part – quote of the article:
“State party Chairman Tom Collins sent a lengthy e-mail to members Friday evening seeking to assuage their concerns.
… (skipped two paragraphs)…
“You may not agree with us, but trust that this is not a sell-out or a cave-in to the lures of Fox. This is how we will win over new voters.”

Dems don’t believe many of their members watch FSN, therefore, they have a chance to reach ‘new voters’. FSN gets the ratings boost. Both “make more money” whether by advertising or by garnering new votes. This confirms my reasoning as to the Why question earlier. Dems also get the bonus in this case of stirring up the left of left base to draw even more attention to their candidates and party.

The fact is, this forum and debate mean very little in the political life of the ’08 campaign. The reality is Hil will be the Dem nom…no matter what BHO does…or, for that matter, what any of the others do.

So, Marc’s summary and perfunctory dismissal of several candidates is spot on. I would go even further and dismiss Edwards as anything other than a campaign hangnail.

Sigh!

K, K, K. Geeze. I was referring to Al and Dennis’s similar personaes silly, their color being the only difference of course. If you see this as bracing and open racism, then I would say the bias lies with you…..a typical lefty looking for a victim to defend.

Believe me, Al certainly does not need, or want your defense. He is more than capable of defending himself. But I’m sure from your left view of blacks, it’s doubtful.

February 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am

There is some evidence that Richardson is attracing some attention and may be the “dark horse” to watch. I basically agree on the others. Dennis Kucinich is important because he will raise issues that the others won’t but I really don’t see him (or Mike Gravel) as more than protest candidates. As for Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd. Nice guys but really, why? What is the rational for their campaigns?

Hillary will have real problems with the base. She cannot escape her vote for the war and, unlike Edwards, refuses to say it was a mistake. And her saying that only she understands terrorism and that her vote was because of 9/11 puts her in Bush Terrotory. She has a lot of money and that will keep her going but I keep thinking of John Connelly. He had a lot of money too and it got him one delegate. Hil will do better than that but I would not be surprised if she falls flat on her face. Getting mad at Barack Obama for what David Geffen said and asking Obama to apologize and give back the money suggests a thin skin and poor judgement. I think she will be toast.”

I agree, I think Richardson could be a Dark Horse candidate if he plays his cards right. His experience as governor, which used to be considered a plus for those seeking the nation’s highest executive office, could benefit him more than most people seem to think. I was reading somewhere that he has developed a reputation as a progressive who has demonstrated an ability to appeal to many Republicans because of his ability to reach out and appeal to common values held by liberals and conservatives alike. While this may turn off many progressive voters, people hoping for someone with a reputation for true bipartisanship could find Richardson more to their liking.

I think Kucinich, as you said, probably won’t win but he will say things in the debates the others are too afraid to come right out and say themselves. In that regard, his candidacy has the advantage of raising issues that would otherwise go ignored. I know it’s early, and chances are I could be proven wrong, but I think Clinton will flame out early like Howard Dean. It will probably come down to Edwards, Richardson or Obama. And if the nominee is one of those three, I’m hoping he’ll pick Kucinich as his running mate. I think we need a progressive voice in the White House.

Hillary will have real problems with the base. She cannot escape her vote for the war and, unlike Edwards, refuses to say it was a mistake. And her saying that only she understands terrorism and that her vote was because of 9/11 puts her in Bush Terrotory. She has a lot of money and that will keep her going but I keep thinking of John Connelly. He had a lot of money too and it got him one delegate. Hil will do better than that but I would not be surprised if she falls flat on her face. Getting mad at Barack Obama for what David Geffen said and asking Obama to apologize and give back the money suggests a thin skin and poor judgement. I think she will be toast.

February 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
Michael Kwiatkowski:

I take no ’stab’ at Kucinich. I credit him for what he said. And then I accurately describe his behavior on camera. If his twirling and chanting makes you uncomfortable, direct your comments to him — not me.

Senators Dodd and Biden are intelligent men who in certain circumstances have some contributions to make. if you find them credible presidential candidates, that’s your right. I dont. ”

It might have served you better to be more substantial in your writing, otherwise I might have had kinder words for your piece. The issue I take with your column is that you utterly failed to address the meat of the candidates’ words, focusing instead on inconsequential details. WHY do these candidates “have no chance?” You never explained that. What is your opinion of their positions? Why do you hold that opinion?

The awful thing about today’s politics is that so-called front-runner candidates gain their status not for their platforms or their demonstrated knowledge (or lack thereof), but on their “star power.” Hillary is famous for her husband’s status as a former president with a lot of baggage. Obama seems to be a “flavor of the month” candidate viewed favorably because…why, exactly? What is it that separates him from Carol Mosley-Braun, for example? If you’re going on qualifications, Ms. Mosley-Braun’s foreign service experience certainly puts her above Obama.

But you addressed none of this in your column. Substance wins over style, Mr. Cooper. You might do well to remember that.

“… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

[CPCCG definition]

In the Iraq context, he probably meant the obvious: large-scale systematic slaughter. I’m surprised you can even find a nit to pick in this one.

Actually, the most interesting thing so far about the campaign is the bracing, open white racism from Republicans like Rush, Beck, and Jim R. “Al in whiteface?” Jim R is just wink to his base, and we’ll see plenty of that. The question is, how often will “progressives” call them on it.

We shall see, by the way, how Rudy’s line about 9-11, “the first think I thought was “thank God George Bush is President” plays this time around.

Ya think?

February 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am

There is some evidence that Richardson is attracing some attention and may be the “dark horse” to watch. I basically agree on the others. Dennis Kucinich is important because he will raise issues that the others won’t but I really don’t see him (or Mike Gravel) as more than protest candidates. As for Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd. Nice guys but really, why? What is the rational for their campaigns?

Hillary will have real problems with the base. She cannot escape her vote for the war and, unlike Edwards, refuses to say it was a mistake. And her saying that only she understands terrorism and that her vote was because of 9/11 puts her in Bush Terrotory. She has a lot of money and that will keep her going but I keep thinking of John Connelly. He had a lot of money too and it got him one delegate. Hil will do better than that but I would not be surprised if she falls flat on her face. Getting mad at Barack Obama for what David Geffen said and asking Obama to apologize and give back the money suggests a thin skin and poor judgement. I think she will be toast.”

I agree, I think Richardson could be a Dark Horse candidate if he plays his cards right. His experience as governor, which used to be considered a plus for those seeking the nation’s highest executive office, could benefit him more than most people seem to think. I was reading somewhere that he has developed a reputation as a progressive who has demonstrated an ability to appeal to many Republicans because of his ability to reach out and appeal to common values held by liberals and conservatives alike. While this may turn off many progressive voters, people hoping for someone with a reputation for true bipartisanship could find Richardson more to their liking.

I think Kucinich, as you said, probably won’t win but he will say things in the debates the others are too afraid to come right out and say themselves. In that regard, his candidacy has the advantage of raising issues that would otherwise go ignored. I know it’s early, and chances are I could be proven wrong, but I think Clinton will flame out early like Howard Dean. It will probably come down to Edwards, Richardson or Obama. And if the nominee is one of those three, I’m hoping he’ll pick Kucinich as his running mate. I think we need a progressive voice in the White House.