Joe Wilson endorses Hillary-"she's the one who understands the need to get us out of harm's way."

(For Joe Wilson to say that Hillary is the "only candidate who understands the need to get America out of harm's way" is so totally untrue, it is mindboggling! Wilson also doesn't rule out taking a job in a Hillary administration.)

Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary!
By Greg Sargent | bio
Joe Wilson just endorsed Hillary during an ongoing conference call with liberal bloggers.

Wilson just said that "she is the one candidate in my judgment who understands the need to get America out of harm's way," and into a "political process." He added that she best understands the need to "end the war but end it in a way that preserves some shred of our strategic position in the region."

More soon.

Update: Wilson also says that one thing that bonds the two is their mutual experience with the "meat grinder" -- a.k.a., the right wing slime machine.

Update II: Wilson, asked if he would serve under a Hillary administration if offered a post, says: "This is not a job interview," though he adds: "You never know."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/16/joe_wilson_endorses_hillary

Edited to add Update III:

Update III: A few quick points about this. The Hillary campaign, which rolled out the Wilson news on a conference call with liberal bloggers, clearly hopes the Wilson endorsement serves at least the partial goal of winning over liberal activists and netroots types who might still be unhappy with Hillary for all the reasons you've heard repeatedly by now. Wilson carries great cache among such folks, who were energized by his speaking out against the administration and everything else that happened as a result of his protracted fight with the White House.

It's interesting, then, to note that the primary reason Wilson cited for backing Hillary is her view of what should happen after the war -- her awareness, as he sees it, of the need to end the war "in a way that preserves some shred of our strategic position in the region." This, of course, touches on the whole residual force debate, which ironically is something Hillary has taken heat for from bloggers and others whom the Wilson endorsement is most likely to impress.

Hillary's post-war plans, of course, are not the only reason Wilson says he's backing her. Asked whether Hillary was really preferable to the other Dems on Iraq, he repeated his endorsement of her post-war vision, but also made it very clear that they also had a powerful personal connection born of having both been through the right wing slime "meat grinder."

Indeed, at one point, Wilson, who's moving to Santa Fe, recounted that the two were recently having dinner together and discussing the difficulties of living under sustained media and political assaults. According to Wilson, she told him:

"Joe, when you get to Santa Fe, let it go."

Of Hillary's advice, Wilson added: "That's where she is, and I have learned an enormous amount from that."

I think this could get ugly.

...will rethink their opinions of Hillary based on Wilson's endorsement.

:rofl:

Anyway, Joe gets it, unlike many here

I think it's untrue too. I love Joe but I think he just made a huge mistake.

You guys are leaving no middle ground. It's not black and white you know.

duck and cover Joe.

Buhwawawawa!

:shrug: but I have no reason to loathe him.

wT2 is very good at expressing such things.


TC

I think they're 100% wrong, but I don't hate them.

Or would that make your head explode?

I hope he gives his decision some serious thought.

I just don't agree with him on this.

not much surprise that he would jump on the Dynasty Express ...

that's quite an interesting endorsement considering many of his concerns stem from the perpetual power that keeps recycling itself. Hmmmmmmm...

Hillary wants to keep some troops in Iraq and was the last Dem Prez candidate to even consider some kind of redeployment.

Hillary has never apologized for her IWR vote.

She was calling for a pullout before it was popular, she was just against an immediate pullout, feeling, as many others did, that breaking the country and then leaving it in bloody anarchy was a double atrocity.

And she said long ago that the IWR was a mistake. She hasn't flogged herself publicly for it, partially because she voted for it for the right reasons, but no one would have taken her seriously if she had, anyway.

Joe Wilson, as is often the case, knows what he is talking about, and understands the implications of his actions and statements very well. As we have seen, he is big on research. If you don't like his endorsement, fine, but don't think for a second that he made his decision out of ignorance.

She's not a leader, but a follower of polls.

And I have not seen her say that IWR was a mistake. She did not read the intelligence report prior to voting for it. If she had, she may have voted against IWR, like most of the senators who did read it.

a big feather in hillary's cap. we need a female president and since mrs edwards isnt running hillary may be the next best thing.

Hillary's masters are her corporate donors. She'll serve them before us.

Yadda, yadda, yadda!!!

with you

hillary is the only one running

"we need a female president and since mrs edwards isnt running hillary may be the next best thing."

If Edwards, Obama, Gore or anyone else wins the Democratic nomination, and the Repukes run Kindasleazy Rice, are you going to support her because we "need a female president".

We don't NEED a female president.
We don't NEED an African American president. Or a Latino president. Or a Jewish president (Feingold isn't running anyway)

We NEED a president who can reverse the disastrous course this country has been on for the last 25 years, but especially the last 7 years.

Give me a candidate who can assure me of that, and I will vote for him or her. Race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or right/left-handedness notwithstanding.

But at least don't be all SHannity about it. Reasoned objections are fine.

Good Democrats are going to disagree with each other.

I'm not sure everyone understands that.

for endorsing a particular candidate. In 2004, he endorsed Kerry, and while it made me wince, I never "trashed" him. It never made me lose respect for him.

That having been said, he's wrong this time, too. I think he's wrong about needing to preserve our "strategic postion" in the Middle East, as well. But he's a decent man, nonetheless.

TC

:puke:

:rofl:

TC

He obviously only did this because of a secret job incentive offered by the Clintons, in his heart he really endorses some other candidate.

But he couldn't withstand the one - the only - Hillary - she is master of the Universe!

<sarcasm>

Wilson is in Rove's pocket. They're best buddies. :eyes:

That certainly doesn't mean he is a bad person, I have a lot of respect for the guy but I would not put a lot of weight on his endorsements because I know I would not agree with him on a good number of issues.

And for the record, I do NOT think Rove had anything to do with this. I do think that Wilson is much more conservative than many people realize and Hillary probably does represent his belief system pretty well.

We can respect Wilson yet disagree with his political opinions sometimes.

Just because someone is a hero does not mean I have to agree with them on everything though.

it makes perfect sense that as a Republican, he would favour Hillary.

:eyes:

Yeah that whole outing of his wife by "KKKarl" was all part of the evil plan.

:eyes:

I can't believe ...... not wait I take that. When it comes to trashing Hillary people will pull ANYTHING out of their ass to do so.

How instructive - everything that drives me crazy about DU in one post. Thanks for the gibberish logic.

I only know who I won't support at this point and it's not Clinton, so good for her.

was ,like Scott Ritter, he was once a registered republican. So endorsement seesm logical in that light. Still, it's a good endorsement.

I like Hillary. It's her organization that scares me.

If anyone were capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ( Kerry-Edwards, anyone?) it's those guys.

Since the Clinton's have never lost a national election, and are 10-2 overall...what history of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" would inform that statement...?

starting to catch up thanks to Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy.

And then there's the past Clintonista- Terry McCauliff who did NOTHING to counter GOP Election Fraud.

Yeah, the Clinton's won THEIR elections. They could give a crap about other Dems unless whoever vowed fealty.

This guy strikes me as an extremely well informed, intelligent diplomat. To me, it makes me even more proud to support Hillary. Watching this guy on TV and reading his publications, I have great respect and admiration for the guy. IMO for him to do this proves that she is a progressive.

All I know is that bush* shit on him and his wife and they chose to fight instead of rolling over.
Good for Joe Wilson. I applaud them. I wish more Democrats would choose to fight.

As far as I know, Joe Wilson was (and is) a member of the ambassador Jet Set. As a member of the American Aristocracy, I would expect him to support a candidate that will protect his elite social and economic status.
No shock at this announcement, just as there was no shock to find Rupert Murdoch holding fundraisrs for Hillary.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

You can only feel sorry for Hillary. She certainly doesn't deserve to be associated with him at. all. - though needs must when the Devil (in this case, in the guise of the American political system) drives, I suppose.

But what a brilliant signature-line quote from Paul Wellstone, I'm sure of cherished memory.

He'll endorse Obama in the GE after he's the nominee.

:hi:

I'd bet Joe having worked with Bill put something into the decision rather than actually thinking that Senator Clinton is the only one to be able to handle the World's problems.

How he'd suppport someone who got hoodwinked by the war with the vote on the Iraq War Resolution he doesn't support and say that person knows more about how to get out of the war is kind of a stretch...

Hillary's advice evidently meant a great deal to Joe Wilson; he and his wife have been through a great deal. Hillary understands unrelenting press scrutiny, that's for sure.

I don't expect to agree with him (nor anyone else for that matter) on everything.

I remain grateful that he stood up and called bullshit on this administration.

I will admit that my first reaction was, "of course, he's a Republican". But I had to be honest with myself and admit that my first reaction to the same guy endorsing Obama would be, "once again proving that Obama has more cross-over appeal".

So good for her. This should help with the pacifist (aka, nothing-is-important-but-getting-out-of-Iraq) crowd.

Members of the aristocracy always back each other. Glad that at least some have high ethical standards, but I'd still prefer that the government get back into the business of working for average Americans.

Joe Wilson is not a very big name outside of political insiders. Even then, most people just know him as a victim of Rove and the Bush White House, not particularly as a person with great political wisdom. I can't imagine this swaying anyone.

Clinton Endorsements as of 6/13/07

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x197


Clinton endorsements con't. 6/13/07 thru 6/21/07

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x210


Clinton endorsements con't. 6/21/07 - 6/27/07

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x216


Clinton Endorsements (#4 thread) 6/27/07 - 7/05/07

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x222


7/05/07 - 7/16/07

7/16/2007


Former Indiana Sec. of State Hogsett Endorses Clinton


"The people of Indiana are ready for change, and Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to deliver it from her first day in the White House," Hogsett said.

Hogsett served as Secretary of State from 1989 to 1994, cutting the office's budget every year while improving performance. His "doing more with less" philosophy resulted in national awards for the office's corporations division, and his securities division's crack down on unscrupulous stockbrokers and lenders increased protection for Hoosier consumers.

After his tenure as Secretary of State, Hogsett served as chief of staff and senior adviser to Governor Evan Bayh from 1995 to 1997. He later served as Chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party from 2003 to 2004.




7/13/07

Nevada and Reno-Sparks leader Melendez endorses Clinton


WASHINGTON - A Native leader with a national profile has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, providing her campaign with an edge in the key early primary state of Nevada - sparsely populated and closely contested enough that the Indian vote could make the difference.

As for Clinton herself, Melendez said no other candidate is as qualified to unite the nation while advancing diverse cultures, including the Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian cultures. She headed up a Democratic forum on Native issues in 2004, and Melendez expects the experience will stand her in good stead. ''She knows the issues already, and she'll hit the ground running.''




7/12/07

RI Speaker Tempore Charlene Lima, State Legislators Endorse Clinton
Hillary Clinton received the endorsements of Rhode Island House Speaker Tempore Charlene Lima and several leading state legislators today

"I am proud to offer my support to Senator Hillary Clinton in her campaign for President," Lima said. "Hillary has the determination, courage and experience to bring hope back to America. Hope for a stronger, more compassionate America. Hope for an America where everyone has the right and means to affordable health care. Hope for an America once again respected by other nations of the world. That hope is coming, and her name is Senator Hillary Clinton."

Today's endorsers join Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman Jim Langevin, Secretary of State Ralph Mollis and Providence Mayor David Cicilline in supporting Clinton, demonstrating her growing support in the Ocean State.

Rhode Island Legislators Endorsing Hillary Today:



Speaker Tempore Rep. Charlene Lima
Rep. Elizabeth Dennigan
Rep. Amy Rice
Rep. Peter Wasylyk
Rep. Joseph McNamara
Rep. Grace Diaz
Rep. Edith Ajello
Rep. Patricia Serpa







7/10/2007
New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke Endorses Clinton for President


"After careful deliberations and discussions with the diverse base of my constituency, I am convinced that Senator Clinton is best able to win and bring much needed change to the White House," Rep. Clarke said. "I support Hillary because she is a leader who has been a forceful and tireless advocate on behalf of New York's families, especially concerning the needs of those most affected after 9/11. The depth of Hillary's experience will allow her to hit the ground running on her first day in office."



edbr

.....(For Joe Wilson to say that Hillary is the "only candidate who understands the need to get America out of harm's way" is so totally untrue, it is mindboggling! Wilson also doesn't rule out taking a job in a Hillary administration.)

:thumbsdown:

but what the hell, if HRC's DLC doesn't win, "the corporate" world still wins even if the republicans score the Unitary Executive. GOD is Multi-National MEGA Corporate Interest and *he will be served* by either a DLC or a republican President. :evilgrin:

And it's all about our blessed Stock Market and big business lapping up all those profits, isn't it?

Win-Win situation all the way around for Joe Wilson.

Buddy of mine, historically voted Republican, but disgusted with their right turn...looking at voting Democratic but was unsure about Hillary, emailed me today to tell me Joe Wilson's endorsement swung it for him and he will be supporting Hillary...

He's a great ambassador who'd be an asset for any administration.

he had a job in the Bill Clinton administration - as well as other administrations.

Do you think if Hillary Clinton is elected, she should only hire people with no previous experience?

Simple. :shrug:

between 1993 and 2001 is a "Clinton Crony"? Is he also a George H. W. Bush crony?

Is Plame a George W. Bush crony?

That's why we need NEW BLOOD. No more Bush and Clinton recycles - no more Dynasties. :(

instead of deflecting like that.

Do you think anybody who worked in the executive branch between 1993 and 2001 is a "Clinton crony"?

will surely happen and increase the STRANGLEHOLD of the Unitary Executive on our Government's operation.

Whether it be a Republican or Democratic White house, it's DANGEROUS for "the people" to recycle these families and these same positions.

The continuation of our Democratic Republic DEMANDS that we have *Diversity NOT Dynasty* in our Executive Branch in order to Promote the continuation of 1) the balance of power and 2) discouragement of Dynastic Rule.

to follow your wishes, every administration would have to hire tens of thousands of people with absolutely no experience.

Wilson worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations - he's nobody's crony. He's a career diplomat. And thank God for career diplomats - we need 'em!

You're welcome and yes, I accept your apology. :hi:

When you have to tell people you've won it..

:shrug:

not you.

I've never expressed my opinion of your sanity.

:rofl:

You and your partner have not only said my ideas are "nuts" but that "I'm irrational."

Yes, I've worked in psychology and know that you are on a "fine line" addressing BEHAVIOR but you're close, real close to crossing the line into personal insult. ;)

How should it be phrased to make sure you are not being insulted personally...

I will choose to opt out of such blather. No good can come out of more conversation with you. I've made my points and you don't like them. That's fine. There's nothing more to discuss.

To back up your assertion...?

in quotes?

I spelled it properly.


Now, again, is it your position that a new President should fill the tens of thousands of jobs in the executive branch with people who have no experience?

is a 42 year old man, who's at work at the moment. He hasn't expressed an opinion on your sanity.

What do you wish to say about you and your partner when it comes to "sanity?"

Don't you now see how "the game" of obfuscation is played?

Yes, because you have honed it to a fine art.

are you claiming BlindElmer is my partner?

That's not true. I don't know him/her. I know s/he's a Clinton supporter. I haven't chosen a candidate yet, but Clinton is certainly in my top 3.

I'M your partner now.

Hey, where's my beer damn it! I'm home, thirsty and need a little nookie!

But of course when SHE does it, it's different. Homegirl can spin her head better than Linda Blair.

it. :hi:

And apparently doesn't mind looking really foolish searching for some convoluted way to criticize her...especially when there is good news for her...

Have a good evening. :-) :hi:

It's sad what blind hate does to people.

;)

for any politician, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anything I've ever written here that contradicts that statement.

But back to the point - do you HONESTLY believe that a new President should fill the tens of thousands of executive branch jobs with people who have no previous experience in government? Yes or no?

You've cornered the market on that.

Oh dear. That might be a "personal attack" in your book.

I'm sure if Wilson endorsed Obama there would be a different tune being sung. Your blind hate toward HRC is SO predictable.

So whoever the next president is should hire people with NO experience? We can have a bunch of "Heck of a job Brownies".

Get real.

For a job within a CLinton administration?

reign. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Poppy and Bill's ROTATING Unitary Executive Branch? Political cronyism from sea to shining sea!

That they do not know, or that have not worked for a previous Republican administration?

And can you provide any evidence other than "The feeling" that there was no substantive difference between the Clinton and Bush administration, and can you demonstrate for me the areas in which Hillary Clinton has been in lockstep with the current one...

The American People deserve NEW BLOOD within the Executive Branch. Recycling in OLD Cronies - old boys and girls from past Administrations is IMO, NOT what OUR Democratic Republic was founded upon. :shrug:

will decide for themselves what they deserve.

The notion that people with previous experience in government shouldn't hold jobs in a new administration is just stupid. Blindingly stupid.

:eyes:

In his cabinet once he was elected in 1948?

because it's hard to argue that WASN'T cronyism. It was nepotism. Neverthless, he was a great AG.

But the notion that the tens of thousands of executive branch jobs should be filled with people with no experience is just silly.

Cronyism

Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.

Nepotism

Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business.

choosing our nominees, presidents, etc....better yet, are we really being given a choice to make...or does it just seem that way?...are there a few very powerful people pulling strings behind the scenes?...the primaries are being moved up to an almost impossible time frame...candidates are running for office, and raising money, asap after the last election....we are getting election fatique, because it's being crammed into a shorter/shorter time frame, they want those nominees more or less chosen almost a whole year before the actual election in Nov....WHY the rush?....meanwhile the media is complicit in shoving certain candidates down our throats continually, while at the same time, keeping others in the dark...then consider, questionable alliances between fund raisers/candidates...ie:Rupert Murdock/Hillary...which gives me a damned creepy/unreal feeling...(has anyone, including the dems, done anything to get rid of the electronic voting machines nationwide....why not?)

How many people have seen elections like the ones that took place in 2000/2002/2004 even 2006?...The SC chooses a pres for us? Florida is a deciding state? People who were leading in the polls by great margins end up surprised to find themselves replaced?.....voters scrubbed from the lists....suspected fraud in multiple states....Ohio a deciding state?....people standing in line for 8/10 hours to vote, only to be turned away?....Exit polls wrong for the first time ever?? We've had a lot of FIRST time incidents in the last few elections...(and I don't believe in coincidences)

Then consider the arrogance of this particular prez...what makes a person arrogant?...when one person has something secret over another, it shows by the way they act.....so considering all that has taken place since he was awarded the office in 2000..he still continues to act as though he cannot be touched...WHY??? A lame fucking duck of a president who admits his WH most likely committed treason, but move on now...it's old news, nothing to see here...A prez., who more or less tells OUR Congress to kiss his ass, that Mrs.Miers is NOT going to honor their subpeona...and calls the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper"...who tells us...I AM THE DECIDER...excuse me?? A prez that says "you are either with us, or against us"...I want to know when someone is going to tell Mr.Decider that he is either WITH US, or AGAINST US???...but wait....haven't his actions told us exactly WHERE HE STANDS?? So tell me....IF we are so happy with his performance....WHY are we having another election next year??? Why NOT just annoint him King George? and save ourselves the time, trouble, and expense of an election?...

I wonder if it's possible that those very powerful people have told him, that he can't be touched, now or in the future for anything he does while in office?...would that affect the way he governs? Think about the last 6 1/2 years...the terrible scandals...the losses...the illegal war...the lies...treason...the continual thumbing of his nose at us, along with his thousand plus signing statements, and executive orders...and still he remains in office telling us with that same maddening arrogance, that he will veto this or that, that Gonzalez stays and that Mrs.Meirs will ignore a Congressional subpeona, and we WILL stay in Iraq, period!!....just simply amazing...

what is it Josef Stalin said...."Those who cast the vote decide nothing...those who count the vote, decide everything".....think about it...

(I seem to be ranting a lot lately...I apologize...no offence meant to anyone..but I am frustrated as hell right about now and more than a little pissed off about a whole bunch of things)
windbreeze

How did you do that? I woke up absolutely knowing that hillary and Barack will be our new king/queen. I am more of a kucinich/gore person if i actually had a say, but i feel so manipulated i believe NOTHING. I am even angry that if Hilary wins I can't be prouder. Her bio is so admirable, then she enters the political machinery and I don't recognize the woman any more. What happens in there? Who is pulling the strings? Who sent the anthrax?

I feel like they are all waiting for the next false flag op, some will be fooled/foolish and some culpable. The one thing that should be clear by now to everyone is that it is not the left leaning crowd that assassinates people. Considering that this is the most hated admin in history yet they are all safe and sound, yet the Democratic leaders have been killed even with their popularity among the people... well we know now who constitutes the killers.

I woke up after my dream thinking when did the congress start acting like our parents? They know best??? They belong to us! We know best and polls show clearly what we want, yet Impeachment is off the table. The smirk-er in chief has reason to grin.

PS: Even manipulated, even if it is a kingdom...there are better kings/queens and worse. At least our guys believe in evolution and compact fluorescent light bulbs, so I will get my passport in order, stay living close to the border, and keep fighting for progressive candidates. From the bottom up we will never shut up. PAPER BALLOTS HAND COUNTED RANDOM AUDITS INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING FREE TV TIME FOR ALL CANDIDATES CLEAN ELECTION FUNDING! Then lets see what the PEOPLE really want.

I've been told, many times, that I do too much thinking..I take one thing I read or see...remember it, and patiently wait for, or to see if, some other thing/s play/plays into it...As I have watched this country, it's elections, *'s actions, Congressional actions, SC actions for the last 6 1/2 years, I have remained curious, as to what is/has been/and continues to be, the underlying reason for what is happening...what is driving it, that people are NOT catching onto? what is slipping right past our radar?...and who all is involved??(I believe "it" goes back many, many decades, and some of those involved now...were involved a full 50 years and more, ago, Eisenhower warned us to be watchful, and so did Kennedy...imo, we screwed up, big time)

When a person or a government body acts with the pure unadulterated arrogance that we have seen come from this WH..there has to be an underlying reason/justification for that arrogance....some unknown that enables and encourages it...and there has to be some way for that entity to know, they are never going to be held accountable for anything they've done....that they can literally get away with murder, torture, breaking the law, trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while telling our Congress to kiss their ass...there aren't too many scenarios that would make that possible..and the ones that do, in my book, are scary as hell...

People need to either start asking more questions, or different questions...what is the agenda of a certain powerful organization that most of the presidential candidates from both parties belong to? Are we gullible enough to believe that any one of them is NOT aware of what the others in the same organization are up too? Do they have meetings, and make plans? Do both party's members work together to accomplish projects?..Do they have an agenda we might not like, therefore we mustn't be allowed to catch on?

Wake up America...Wake up...our country is being destroyed from within, while our attention is constantly being diverted by the outrageous behavior of our leader and his cronies...maybe speaker Pelosi, and a few others have caught on..(and maybe all the arrogance is a planned cover...after all, it has been very effective in keeping our attention hasn't it?)
windbreeze

The same people keep showing up in our government. Like, i love this, the "bipartisan" Hamilton, etc. keeps showing up to be on the important commisions. Tell us another story. Manage our perceptions. Like they all ready told us...they will create reality and we will just be there to study it as history. It is some times wiser to stand on the bank and let the river of history/war flow by. Keep out of the way if you can.

Yet make the same point...do you believe that Presidents should not hire people from a previous administration...?

Your criticism of the revolving door implies that there was no substantive difference between Bush 41 and Bill Clinton, that there was no substantive difference between Bush 43 and Bill Clinton, and that there would be no substantive difference between Bush 43 and Hillary Clinton...is that your contention...and if so can you provide any evidence to back this up

And can you quote for me the passages in any of the founding documents or in supporting documentation (such as the federalist papers), that back up your contention that it was the intention of the founders that those that were members of prior administrations should not be part of future ones...

Does that mean that Joe Wilson should just "let it go" that his wife was treasonously outed as a CIA agent by the Bush administration and not continue with the fight?

Did Senator Clinton ask Joe Wilson to give the Bush administration a free pass on what has turned out to be one of the reasons she decided to help out Bush get into Iraq in the first place?

Wow.

I'd like someone to interview him about that meeting. Who cares about the endorsement. Should we care that crime goes on without justice? Should his years of fighting for his wife be resorted to a tragically benign ending?

He was talking about Hillary's advice that he not worry about the insults and blind hatred coming his way...but to focus on the important issue...

I highly respect Joe Wilson and just thought that the "let it go" stuff seemed a tad overstepping. It wasn't a "purposeful misreading"...

It serves no "common good" in that it will not sway ANY centrists to swing HRC's way.

It's troubling to hear this from Joe Wilson. :(

Plamegate, remember that?

THEN, you can endorse a candidate :)

It's going to come to an end soon. It will come to an end for many of the same reasons that Vietnam came to an end.

It doesn't matter who gets elected as long as it isn't a pro-war repuke or lieberman...

Iraq is too costly, too inefficient, too unpopular and has pissed the sheeple off. The sheeple are a little bit awake now, they're peeking behind the curtain and that scares the shit out of the owners of the "ownership society".

I'm more worried about future wars. Future wars will be waged for the same reasons and for the same capitalist corporate interests that this one was waged.

I doubt that Hillary or Obama or Edwards will do much about that core issue, the major cause of Iraq and all other deprivations visited upon the Earth by the capitalist masters...

But that's ok, we're doomed anyway. Global climate change will get us all -- all mammals.

The Earth bats last...

he'll always have a spot in my heart for saying that Karl Rove should be frog-marched out of the White House.

Hillary has still refused to apologize for his IWR vote. Edwards voted for IWR too so he shares blame along with Clinton and Dodd for that, but at least Edwards has apologized for it.

Joe should have thrown his support to Obama or Edwards imo.

I'm incredibly anti-Hillary in the primaries. If she does get the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for her, despite the stank odor, but I really, really hope that she doesn't get it.

Not that i agree with Joe or that it matters...

even good men make mistakes...

Hell, he used to be a republican...

I really don't get it....but for Hillary...a coup d'etat of sorts...very, very clever...however, doesn't change my mind one bit..
windbreeze

if he would have endorsed Obama, Kucinich (cough cough) or any other Democrat you'd be falling all over each other singing his praises, but since it's Hillary.....

I can write the typical responses with a blind fold on.