I think she's fishing for Rudy Guiliani votes.
As much as ever, I still find it impossible that she would win the nomination. If she were to, I would believe once and for all that Democratic primary voters have taken leave of their senses.
I truly do not understand her appeal on any level.

So far:

- Edwards supported Bush's murderous and futile troop surge.

- Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman after he lost the Democratic primary.

- Hillary Clinton IS Joe Lieberman in drag.

Anybody seen a DEMOCRAT running for president? I'm getting a little tired of these poorly fabricated CPA's (Complete Pandering Assholes).

One of these days a REAL Democrat will come along, and he'll reveal all these lame-ass DLC, blue-dog, third-way pseudo-Dems to be the ugly, half-breed sellout donkey-phants that they are.

But will Keith Olberman run for president?

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

...deter Iranian aggression...

Other than a bunch of trash-talking on the part of Ahmadinejad, has there been any aggression?

You know, if you look at things from their side, it's the US that's been the aggressor, starting with the CIA toppling of Mossadegh, bringing in a tyrant ruler, egging neighbors into a war, shooting down civilian airliners...

to the rigid position that US "interests" must be secured by armed intervention. Who at this point can possibly be surprised that virtually every "mainstream" politico of both parties endorses the "consensus view" of US foreign policy as it has been practiced since the Cold War, and refined toward world hegemony since collapse of the Soviet Union? The public has been conditioned to expect this, the military has taken it on board as a principal "mission", and the entire culture is geared toward "projecting a muscular foreign policy", usually at the point of a gun.
Where is the national debate as to the continued viability of this mindset? Where are those "intellectuals" and think-tank pundits calling for a revisiting of old and discredited policy assumptions? No, one can't fault HRC, as she is simply parroting the "national interest" here, seemingly enshrined immutably within both parties and the public.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for contless more meaningless U.S. deaths and further control of what laughably can be called the U.S. government by nuclear-armed Israel.

There is only the patrons of politicians. The only strategic disagreement is who will wind up with the most money. The only difference in tactics is which lie they will tell first.