And don't forget #4. 'Family' ties. A nightmare for the country if even the Democratic candidate supports Dominionists.

So, EB's post is about Hillary's "racially tinged" 2008 primary campaign.

I was here at DU. It was very clear to us at that time the Bush administration was hell bent on invading Iraq, and was engaged in a marketing campaign of deceit to sell the war to the American people. We knew about PNAC and the agenda for global military domination, and that the supposed "grave and gathering threat" posed by the debilitated country of Iraq was a false pretext.

If Hillary Clinton didn't know that, she was too incompetent to hold the office of US senator.

More likely she was on board with the agenda, or stuck her finger in the political winds of the time and decided it was better to be "tough" on national security.

All of which are inexcusable, and unforgivable in my book. Then more than ever, we desperately needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up, speak truth to power, and be champions of the people in opposing this fraudulent rush to a disastrous war that has cost us more than the $3 trillion that will be spent before it's over.

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and other Dems (slightly less than half the total in House & Senate) who voted for the IWR forever lost my vote in Democratic primaries.

Hillary was a hawk then, and she's a hawk now. I do not trust her in matters of war, peace, and national security.

Hillary and Bill were founding members of the DLC. Some say that the DLC was Bill's idea, but I don't know, one way or the other.

The first two full-time employees of the DLC were Al From and Will Marshall.

Marshal left the DLC to found the Progressive Policy Institute, although the two organizations remained closely tied until the DLC's corporate existence ended.

Both the DLC and the PPI were pro invading Iraq and Marshall signed the PNAC letter. Bill Clinton has to be one of the brightest, most knowledgeable politicians in the US, if not the world. I'm guessing Hillary knew about PNAC. And, recall, she did not only vote for the invasion: She advocated for it.

Its so ironic to me that one of the very first members of "centrism", allowing republican economic policy to infiltrate the Democratic Party, is our top contender. Now, at a time when we're feeling the detrimental effects of post-Reagan Dems' policies more than ever. And we can see it clearly, those who are paying attention anyways. Most aren't and are only guided by corporate media spin & a fond memory of a good economy during the Clinton years as the bubble grew.

I have more than 3 though, that's for sure. No time to list them all now.

Thanks for an interesting topic merrily. Though the 3 things you listed cannot be undone. Although #3 to me was just dirty politics. Business as usual for New Democrats.

I don't know if I could rank them by importance to me. They are all huge to me.

That agenda was to abandon traditional Democratic Party FDR values. The nation had already moved too far to the right under Reagan. We didn't need our party to aid the deregulators.

Religion and politics is toxic and deadly mix.

I watched 'Inside Job' again last night, and to say that I am angry that these criminals got off, not only scott free, but with their ill-gotten gains intact, is putting it mildly.

Watching Summers and Greenspan in action gives me chills. To think we might face more of these people collecting more of our money for themselves is enough for me to oppose ANYONE who has any ties to these criminals.

Where, eg, does Hillary stand on Deregulation? Frankly I don't know where she stands on almost any of the issues that are so important to the people.

A big question all candidates need to be asked is 'who will be in your Cabinet'.

And this time no accepting of 'I will be making that decision soon'.

If I were running for that office I would already have a good idea of who I need to help me push for the issues I am running on.

eom