First, he didn’t attend the Daily Kos gab fest (”convention”) last month in Chicago.

I think all the other main would be democrat contenders did attend.

Hillary did, despite having been herself excoriated in Kos’ online pages.

Second, Joe Biden had the courage to rag on the hateful and stupid Petraeus’ ad.

Touche’, Dr. Weevil. I’d forgotten about that.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/NEWS04/70917039/-1/PRINT

Man, what a piece of crap this guy is.

I think her alleged husband taught her that one.

Hillary’s only alliance is to Hillary. She can either use the MoveOn as a cudgel to obliterate her enemies, and then dispose of them later when it suits her, or she can ally herself with MoveOn, accept all sorts of cash, and then set them up for Sister Souldja moment. The other Dems are fully blackmailed and bankrolled by the MoveOn crowd, so their power is moot.

One wrong step from the MoveOn bunch, and all she has to do is send her attack dogs out to julienne them into fine bits – a leak of inappropriate political donations here, an arrest for inappropriate behavior there, and all she has to do is say, “Isn’t it a shame that members of MoveOn are serving multi-year sentences for tax evasion/violating federal election laws/painting Bozo naked on the side of George Bush’s ranch in Crawford.” Hillary can then fulfill her manifest destiny without those rich white suburbanites in the way.

So? Who cares what the maggots at MoveOn.Org say? I’d only start worrying if they said something good about me.

Someday, when you have time, you should learn not to make stupid remarks and then try to pretend they’re not your own opinion.

Bullshit. Senator McCarthy was right, and the Left and the Democrat Party were just as big of scumbags then as they are now.

The ugly thing about that era was was that the leftists won, and because they won, working on behalf of our enemies, up to and including overt acts of treason in time of war is not even prosecuted as a crime (Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Les Roberts, just to give three examples of overt traitors).

If you’re going to give special importance to the first meaning given for a word in a dictionary, you need to check the preface first to see what they put first. Some dictionaries put the most common meaning of the word in contemporary English first. Others are arranged on historical principles, and put the oldest attested meaning of the word first. Very often, the oldest meaning is no longer used in contemporary English, or not used much. The Oxford English Dictionary is arranged historically. I don’t know about Merriam-Webster and American Heritage, but if the latter puts “to lead astray: SEDUCE” first, that looks historical to me. If someone says that a man “betrays” a woman by taking her virginity (and possibly getting her pregnant) without marrying her first, that is NOT a common contemporary meaning of the word. If you quote a dictionary that is arranged on historical principles, you cannot give special importance to whichever meaning is listed first, because being listed first just shows that it is the oldest meaning, not the most important one.

Pity. It’s so…..appropriate……for this thread.