He should work with machines.

Isn't it one of the most accident-prone stores ever, with a habit of smothering lawsuits?

he'll need to be able to sue his employers as well.

THIS is the guy who keeps his cool under pressure.

THIS is the guy who could handle the inevitable onslaught of attacks from the GOP in a general election campaign.

THIS is the guy who could diplomatically deal with foreign heads-of-states as POTUS.

THIS is the guy who has the courage of his convictions - except when those convictions are challenged.

This is NOT the guy for the presidency. Case closed.

He would have problems even if he wasn't promising the sun and the moon! I wonder what he would do if someone yelled "You lie" during HIS state of the Union address.

Thanks Nance~

For we know there was provisions in the bill for Bush to exhaust all means before invading, she could say the part she voted on was to get the inspections, don't have to explain anything else. Wow, she could parrot Bernie's line, there are lots of provisions in a bill.

Obviously not just voting to bomb Iraq at all:

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

More at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/435624/-

Shift blame but Saddam "threatened his daddy" so this was a good reason for Bush to attack Iraq. He knew the WMD'S was not going to be found so he rushed to war.

Too bad we didn't know all that at the time. Hillary clearly wanted and expected the inspections to be done first.

Real, not Vermont, Republicans/teabaggers.

He would be the Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2016!

PEACE!

Wow.

Who does he think he is, Lou Reed?

And Lou didn't produce flying spittle from the stage like Bernie...but Iggy Pop did!

Hence the analogy.

angry all the time people.

Of course we all get mad at times.. but a steady diet of that is sickening.

My most memorable encounter with Sanders was during an editorial board session during a period when the Vermont Progressive Party was reconstituting itself to challenge for more seats on the Burlington City Council.

Sanders had been mayor of Burlington from 1981 until 1989, institutionalizing progressive government in the city and other Vermont enclaves. Although he has been in Washington since his election to the House of Representatives in 1991, he remained the titular head of the movement, yet refused to endorse a progressive slate seeking City Council seats or the new leadership orchestrating the campaigns.

After discussing his favorite issues — corporations, government reform, health care and the like, I asked about his unwillingness to endorse his fellow progressives. He said it wasn't his role. I suggested voters might expect him to weigh in. He disagreed, clearly annoyed at the persistent questioning. Finally I suggested that he had a larger moral responsibility to the progressive movement.

At which point he jumped out of his seat, told me to go f*** myself and stormed out of the edit board meeting. OK, maybe my persistence bordered on hectoring. But I felt he ought to provide an honest answer. My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them.

does not have the temperament to be President or even a low level manager.

He can't accept anyone or thing that disagrees with his ideology. It's his achilles tendon....and we need to push this button more often so maybe some BSS will finally see this and leave the dark side.

Synergie in our Hill Group posted a thread that has an excellent article on him and his voting history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110778379

it explains a lot.

Bernie conveniently blames all his anti-Democratic (big D) votes on what else is in the bills. Sometimes you have to be willing to compromise. An ideologically pure leader will not be successful. He said some of the sentencing issues were unconstitutional. Well pass the bill and let the SC decide. That's what they're there for.

in summits and other meetings with heads of state. W was bad enough; I remember dreading his trips abroad. He embarrassed us every time. Bernie could very well be worse. Happily, we dodged that bullet!

She would be hanging out on the boarder of North Korea with Kim Jong-il !!!!