CY--I have to agree with John Hanks.  The context in which Lincoln took the action of suspending habeas corpus, although later overturned by the Supreme Court, was fundamentally different that the context in which George Bush has engaged in his all out assault on fundamental liberties and our entire system of checks and balances.

Aside from the vast difference in the intelligence of the two men, Lincoln’s views on labor are not only fundamentally at odds with Bush but with the modern Republican Party.  Indeed his views are far closer to those held by Hugo Chavez.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.  Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much higher consideration."--Abraham Lincoln, 1861.

Hill’s promise to “review” all the unconstitutional presidential powers Bush has arrogated unto himself is worthy of . . . Bush. What a gullible, pathetic sucker Conason must be. Hey: you’re a reporter—make her say ON THE RECORD what she really thinks. What about restoring Habeas Corpus? Will she only “review” its suspension if she becomes President? Give me a break!

Clinton Rejects ‘Bush-Cheney Power Grab’

She does not!

That is the biggest bunch of clap-trap about Clinton yet!

If she EVER rejected the Bush Cheney power grab, she would have been beating the drum for IMPEACHMENT years ago!

Got that Hillary?
We want HONESTY in the White House for a change!

#109882 by Marjorie L. Swanson

I took the quiz you suggested.

My candidate was Kucinich [no surprise] followed by Gravel, then Dodd. Followed by Richardson.

Ron Paul was at the top of the list for repubs, but way behind all the dems. Which tells me he isn’t what people think he is.

Thanks for the link. Always good to know my instincts agree with my positions. [Or something like that.]

CY-Please consider the difference between being a bozo, or being bozo.  You also may have noticed the detention of people who are speaking their political thoughts.  Or noticed military activity directed towards grannies and moms.  Speaking of limiting political speech, when was the last time the leading candidates spoke about real issues?

New election rules: Use of the names “Bush” and “Lincoln” in the same sentence will be considered Bozo.

At another point, Tomasky asked Clinton whether “a president, once in the White House, actually [could] give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle?”

“Oh, absolutely, Michael,” she replied, then quickly recovered her circumspection. “I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.”

This is asking me to believe far more than I am willing to trust.  When was the last time you knew somebody who was willing to relinquish their power?  Power is intoxicating, habit forming, addicting, and down right impossible to give up.  Unfortunately, the only ones who should have it are the very ones who will never accede to it.

Marjorie L. Swanson, the mere fact that the nut-jobs in the right wing media continue to target Hillary Clinton does not mean that she is deserving of our support.  The critical question is where she, or any other candidate, stands on issues that truly matter to the vast majority of Americans--the middle and working classes. 

Measured against that standard, Hillary Clinton falls woefully short.  She remains wedded to her husband’s betrayal of American labor--a betrayal that occurred when President Clinton linked up with Reagan/Bush in ramming NAFTA & the WTO--devices that have been a bane to the middle-class aspirations of all working Americans.  These so-called “free-trade” agreements opened the door to the wholesale outsourcing of America’s manufacturing base, as America’s economic elites betrayed this nation in their incessant search for the $2/day foreign laborer.  What was left of American labor has been Wal Mart-ized and pressured to surrender what little remains of the New Deal safety net. 

Hillary Clinton, who once served on Wal-Mart’s board of directors, is on the wrong side of the global class war.  She is the number one recipient of campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex and is second only to George W. Bush in the amount of money she has received from the healthcare insurance lobby.  Her “universal coverage” plan is little more than a scheme to subsidize the healthcare insurance industry--but then so are the variations on that scheme offered up by Obama and Edwards.

There is only one Democratic presidential candidate who is truly siding with the traditional democratic base--the middle and working classes, only one candidate who proposes eliminating the parasitic, unnecessary middle man (for-profit healthcare insurers and HMOs which account for 31% of healthcare costs), only one candidate calling for a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO, replacing them with bilateral trade agreements that respect workers’ rights and protect the environment, a candidate who, unlike Hillary, voted against authorizing the war in Iraq, voted against every bill to fund it and who, unlike Hillary, would have our troops home in the time it takes to safely remove them.  That candidates name is Dennis Kucinich.

In a mature democracy, voters examine a candidate’s positions and vote accordingly.  Supporting a candidate based solely on who likes or hates them is juvenile.

OK, I did it, Marjorie; my result was Ron Paul, as I kind of figured it would be.

Hillary Haters are back on target. Joe Conason and E.J. Dionne are hacks if they don’t hate Hillary enough. Do not dare to speak one word that is not negative about this woman! Actually Hillary Haters, if you want to get you some Hillary bashing watch Chris Matthews on Hardball. He is obsessed with her and never lets anything she says or does pass without some negative spin.

I thought that the candidate that most represented my views was John Edwards. Imagine my surprise when I took a fun little survey that Digby has linked over at Hullabaloo. Seems I’m a Chris Dodd kind of Democrat followed closely by, gasp, Hillary Clinton. Try it yourself and see if you know the candidates as well as you think you do. Or just rant and rave because that is so much easier than thinking as the Right Wing Nuts have so ably shown.

Try the quiz for yourselves: http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

to call hillary a liberal is an insult to any truly liberal mind any where on the planet. she is nothing more than a self serving pig. as a self confirmed madman, i wouldn’t vote for her with a gun pointed at my head. obama has tied himself to a fucking “reformed” homo evangelical. speaking as a fag myself,any fag supporting either of these assholes,is putting the noose around his [or her] own neck. thermonuclear holocaust. it would be glorious

Hillary Clinton is just George Bush wearing a skirt. When she gets her power, she will wield it to increase her power, just as Bush has. She is just a “neo-liberal,” or the flip side of the “neo-conservative” coin. She will continue to prosecute war in the Middle East by trying to massage the issue, probably by reducing troops in Iraq and “redeploying” them to Syria, Iran, or Lebanon.

Both D’s and R’s are hopelessly corrupt (with the single exception of Ron Paul).

The only person I know who would gladly give up the the excessive usurped powers would be Ron Paul.
How can anyone vote for less?

What I want to know is, will Hillary prosecute Bush/Cheney, et al., if elected, they way Dennis has said he would do?

Hillary is kind of like the retired Generals who speak out against our policy after they retire. She is about 6 years late. She should have been speakling out against the power-building that was going on instead of quietly voting for it.
Sorry, Hillary, in my mind you were with the enemy. In this case that would be with the red side of the aisle.

Come on Joe.  You see Hillary’s remarks as a rejection of the precedent set in Bush-Cheney’s power grab ?  That she or another Dem Pres would not want to try on these new robes & crown is almost foolish.  There could be a potential for good here.  Otherwise, the explanation is rather grim for the Dems’ utter lack of clear and collective, principled opposition - that lack of spine charge.  We as Americans should first face the fascistic corporate creep into our governance and the devolvement of our democracy towards dictatorship (which has been contended to be a characteristic of democracies).  Let us also be aware of how little we hear of Hillary’s conservative Goldwater roots, which so far explains her continued centrist backhand of the liberal, even progressive, Left.  Yet still the loony right succeeds in painting her as a liberal.  Because of Hillary, Bill was the best conservative Pres among the recent line following Carter.  We can only hope Hillary’s capitulation to power’s influence is more than becoming our first woman Pres - that she will (once elected) throw off her Goldwater stripes, knife that corporate achilles heel with re-regulation, and become a progressive Queen, using the newly grabbed powers for good, by decree.  This dream is at least less naive than thinking Hillary can revive our failed democracy.

Nice try, Joe.  I’m still not voting for Hillary.  Good luck with the job search, though.

CY, good post, but I wish you had cornered her on NAFTA & the WTO.

“The same Republicans who have tolerated the Bush-Cheney power grab should ponder how they would feel if those same powers are wielded by someone named Clinton. Should that day arrive, let’s hope they join the rest of us in urging restoration of constitutional order.”

Of course they will---blasted hypocrites!

Let’s not forget Ron Paul and the American Freedom Agenda Act; I’d sooner trust him to dismantle the presidency’s enormous power than Hillary.

To paraphrase Herbert Spencer: “The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit on the power of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of presidents!”

“For a senator who went along with too many of that regime’s excesses...”

Yeah, that’s what we want and need…

So, did Clinton release the Hillary papers yet?

Thomas, I agree with you,"Please I respect your opinion so much that it hurts me to see you write such drivel.”
Not one candidate has clearly said they would give up the power than congress cowardly let Bush and Cheney usurp from that body. What is a worse shame than the administration’s taking unlawful liberties, is the media, like you fawning and showing no choler with these lack-luster candidates. Bush did not do this alone,William Jefferson Clinton set the stage and Bush capped the power.

Anyone that dares to say something that isn’t an absolute hatefest of Hillary Clinton is one of her supporters? Damn, your hate runs deep Mr. Billis. I support John Edwards but am liking Hillary Clinton more all the time mainly because of attacks that are unfair, untrue, and distort whatever she says. She knows that everything she says is going to be analized, reanalized and spun. She has good reason for being very careful in what she says. To Hillary haters, left and right, it doesn’t make any difference what she says.