I'd been avoiding reading my e-mail. I was depressed about Senator Clinton's prospects. Finally, I looked, and there had been three consecutive requests for me to go to New Hampshire. I went into headquarters and asked the volunteer coordinator's intern if help was still needed. She introduced me to Nicole, who was responsible for assembling people for the trip. Nicole was eager to sign me up. Since one of the requests for assistance had come from someone at headquarters that I felt I had let down, I felt morally obliged to assist, despite feeling that it was an exercise in futility.

Some five or six months ago, I became aware of a Mr. Wolfson (a Clinton Campaign person) appearing on The O'Reilly Factor in defense of DKos. I watched his appearance on YouTube and then made my way here.

I've been a Hillary Clinton apologist here for a couple months, where the Iraq question is raised, and I regard my advocacy as centrist, where foreign policy is concerned. Nevertheless, a recurring phrase is beginning to stick in my craw. I'll quote from today's The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/...

By the end of two days of testimony, it appeared clear that the Democrats still did not have enough votes to cut off money for the war or set deadlines for an American withdrawal.

It's not that complicated. The default position is that Congress must continue to appropriate special funding of this effort; not that they don't have 'enough votes to cut off money. . .' The real question here is why are Democrats sufficiently pleased with the results of this effort that they will continue to pay the bills for it?

I've seen Hillary's decision to support the Iraq War Resolution criticized here many times. I was asked why I support her, despite this vote (given my moniker), so I wanted to address my support for her candidacy.

I've seen many posts here go over the line. I've tried to point them out and worked to engender civil discourse on the diaries I've seen. While Truman was in retirement, his advisor and friend, Dean Acheson, wrote him a letter in which he tried to lay out good guidelines for civility.

I'm politically open-minded. I'll listen to good ideas from anyone, regardless of their political affiliation. I've done work for National Wildlife Federation and Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, but I've also done volunteer work for Prison Fellowship Ministries. My views on most issues are pointedly left-of-center, but those I worked with at Prison Fellowship Ministries had no cause to take issue with my expression, and my duties included (among other things) the archiving of Chuck Colson's personal/private files. Political affiliation does not make right or wrong, by itself.

The rabid partisanship in Washington D.C. has been disheartening to me, though. Bill Clinton could have been welcomed as someone who would build concensus, but Republican partisanship went to unprecedented heights, during his presidency. President Clinton was only the second President to have been impeached EVER. I think it's fair to say that Republican partisanship has been unprecedented.

My enemy is Republican partisanship; not Republicans. From the Republican partisan's perspective, objective means liberal, fair means Republican-leaning, and balanced means heavily tilted toward the Right.