[kcar]

Yep, without having to have defined her views through the normal process of democracy. Hidden, locked away until stealth-launched with great fanfare as the great historic repeat of Clinton Vs Bush, like it was the second Punic War.

[DannyTN]

"Yep, without having to have defined her views through the normal process of democracy."

I think it's the only chance she's got. The only question is who is going to be sacrificed as the frontrunner.

Hillary couldn't survive a year long campaign, not against George.

Watch them go for a very outspoken candidate who is used to running negative campaigns. (Negative campaigns? that doesn't narrow the field much! lol)

[hoyaloya]

Were we say that Mexico had a WMD stockpile and was imminently going to use it against us - and use that information to justify removing their government via invasion, I can certainly see that that would be a problem.

However, when you give 100 reasons, and one, two, or ten prove to not have been correct, who cares? I don't think anyone other than hardcore anti-war (or anti-bush) types do.

I posit - which is worse:
(1) lying (giving full faith to what these idealogues don't appear to be able to show) about getting uranium from Africa . . . with the result being the historically unequaled victory in Iraq and the removal of a brutal regime or
(2) lying about a foreign government's offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden years prior to September 11, 2001?

We have multiple respected people stating, on the record, using their names, that (2) happened. We have a couple of unnamed sources saying that (1) happened. (Come on, if these "insiders" really thought this was such a big deal, shouldn't they show some cojones and step up and go on the record?)

I believe that the average American, when presented with these two situations, would say (2) is far worse. I don't think this thing has legs, unless the McCains join the battle.