Wow, this was great.
Loved the Twittering, Lifecasting element, as well as the more traditional interviews and commentary.

Congrats to Andrew for getting a thumbs-up from the candidate.

Amanda,

No she didn't make a good point. at all when she said “What part of the '90s didn't like the peace or properity.” That statement is incredibily misleading. First of all, I don't think presidents have control over prices and the economy and I don't want them too. Clinton had no control of the technology boom of the 90s. Second, I think after 9/11 we had no choice but to go war. Unless, you are 9/11 conspiracy theorist that's not an honest statement. And by the way she and her husband happened to support the war in Iraq in the beginning. Let's be truthful here.

nice to see you back.

hey, that acupuncture “cupping” process on Bambuser was positively medieval.

you do realize we did not go to war over 9/11 right?

Oh so we were all set to go into Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11? Where have you been the past 8 years? Seriously?

The major rational for the war was WOMD, so seriously, shut it. And if all it was was 9/11 then we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine, but 9/11 stirred up allot of paranoia that certainly made it easier to get the public behind a war, but that isn't WHY we went to war.

Wait one minute so you saying that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? Are you a pacifist?

I never said anything about Afghanistan, you said that, I did not. And I'm not a pacifist, but I'm opposed to wars that increase our vulnerability by getting the whole middle east more and more pissed at us, increasing the number of terrorists.

But you said, “we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine,” so I was curious if you were also against the war in Afghanistan because you implied the proper the response to 9/11 was just to increase security here at home.

OK, you got me, I'm a bit of a pacifist. I think for the most part countries should stay out of other countries' business to avoid aggravating conflict. I'm also for a much stronger and re-organized UN to increase global security.

Ok.I first like to know where people are coming from when discussing this stuff. I would just like to state that I believe wars have an ability to produce longstanding peace. A lot more people die when no one acts against tyranny and oppression.

True in some cases but not in others. I think that the earlier Iraq war was justified, but I don't think this one is. Just like the Vietnam war wasn't.

Trevor,

We can debate whether the Iraq is justified or not. But if you noticed my original comment objected to her saying, “What part of the '90s didn't like the peace or prosperity.” Implying that under Clinton things were peaceful and under Bush things are not. My point is that is very arrogant way to put it. Presidents don't have much control over “peace.” 9/11 was an act of war, which President Bush had NO control over. So for her to continually lambaste him for not having “peace” is ridiculous in my opinion. Also, Hillary Clinton is a semi-collectivist
so for her blame one person sounds quite individualistic and hypocritical of her.

well i agree Hilary is a hypocrite, I don't care for her really.

The major rational for the war was WOMD, so seriously, shut it. And if all it was was 9/11 then we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine, but 9/11 stirred up allot of paranoia that certainly made it easier to get the public behind a war, but that isn't WHY we went to war.

Wait one minute so you saying that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? Are you a pacifist?

I never said anything about Afghanistan, you said that, I did not. And I'm not a pacifist, but I'm opposed to wars that increase our vulnerability by getting the whole middle east more and more pissed at us, increasing the number of terrorists.

But you said, “we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine,” so I was curious if you were also against the war in Afghanistan because you implied the proper the response to 9/11 was just to increase security here at home.

OK, you got me, I'm a bit of a pacifist. I think for the most part countries should stay out of other countries' business to avoid aggravating conflict. I'm also for a much stronger and re-organized UN to increase global security.

Ok.I first like to know where people are coming from when discussing this stuff. I would just like to state that I believe wars have an ability to produce longstanding peace. A lot more people die when no one acts against tyranny and oppression.

True in some cases but not in others. I think that the earlier Iraq war was justified, but I don't think this one is. Just like the Vietnam war wasn't.

Trevor,

We can debate whether the Iraq is justified or not. But if you noticed my original comment objected to her saying, “What part of the '90s didn't like the peace or prosperity.” Implying that under Clinton things were peaceful and under Bush things are not. My point is that is very arrogant way to put it. Presidents don't have much control over “peace.” 9/11 was an act of war, which President Bush had NO control over. So for her to continually lambaste him for not having “peace” is ridiculous in my opinion. Also, Hillary Clinton is a semi-collectivist
so for her blame one person sounds quite individualistic and hypocritical of her.

well i agree Hilary is a hypocrite, I don't care for her really.

Oh so we were all set to go into Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11? Where have you been the past 8 years? Seriously?

The major rational for the war was WOMD, so seriously, shut it. And if all it was was 9/11 then we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine, but 9/11 stirred up allot of paranoia that certainly made it easier to get the public behind a war, but that isn't WHY we went to war.

Wait one minute so you saying that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? Are you a pacifist?

I never said anything about Afghanistan, you said that, I did not. And I'm not a pacifist, but I'm opposed to wars that increase our vulnerability by getting the whole middle east more and more pissed at us, increasing the number of terrorists.

But you said, “we could just strengthen our security at home and it'd be fine,” so I was curious if you were also against the war in Afghanistan because you implied the proper the response to 9/11 was just to increase security here at home.

OK, you got me, I'm a bit of a pacifist. I think for the most part countries should stay out of other countries' business to avoid aggravating conflict. I'm also for a much stronger and re-organized UN to increase global security.

Ok.I first like to know where people are coming from when discussing this stuff. I would just like to state that I believe wars have an ability to produce longstanding peace. A lot more people die when no one acts against tyranny and oppression.

True in some cases but not in others. I think that the earlier Iraq war was justified, but I don't think this one is. Just like the Vietnam war wasn't.

Trevor,

We can debate whether the Iraq is justified or not. But if you noticed my original comment objected to her saying, “What part of the '90s didn't like the peace or prosperity.” Implying that under Clinton things were peaceful and under Bush things are not. My point is that is very arrogant way to put it. Presidents don't have much control over “peace.” 9/11 was an act of war, which President Bush had NO control over. So for her to continually lambaste him for not having “peace” is ridiculous in my opinion. Also, Hillary Clinton is a semi-collectivist
so for her blame one person sounds quite individualistic and hypocritical of her.

well i agree Hilary is a hypocrite, I don't care for her really.