by dpANDREWS, Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:18:08 AM EST
As Republicans watch the Democratic race unfold they have their fingers crossed. Could Obama upset Clinton? Maybe? Hopefully? It is a thought that has Republicans licking their chops.
The Republicans plan on running basically running their standard playbook, the difference is that unlike most Democrats, present and past, Obama seems oblivious to possible general election issues and is running headlong into a potential GOP buzz saw.
He will either be painted as uber liberal based on past positions that he clearly staked out while in Illinois, or he will be painted as a flip flopper as he trys to temper those positions in a general elections run.
by dpANDREWS, Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:53:11 AM EST
Hillary Clinton continues to dominate by large margains in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. A Quinnipiac poll just released has Clinton essentially doubling the combined support of Edwards and Obama in these delegate rich states (Florida delegates may not be seated of course).
More importantly, in the general election match ups Clinton beats the GOP frontrunners, with the exception of PA, where she is tied with Giulinai.
by dpANDREWS, Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:02:46 AM EST
I guess when you are desperate to win, or faced with losing and going "home" you will resort to anything. It seems Clinton opponents in Iowa are resorting to push polling.
From a push poll in Iowa:
"I do want to let you know, Saturday afternoon, I had a phony pollster call from "an independently owned polling service" ... With my first choice as Hillary and undecided 2nd choice. I was asked if I approved of the direction the country was taking. The question then shifted. "Which of these three options best defines your candidate? 1) Inconsistent on major issues. 2) A weak contender in the general election. 3) Not able to bring change to Washington." I told them I would not answer because it was not a polling question ... "
by dpANDREWS, Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:01:50 AM EST
Watch any college basketball lately? Did you see Mercer, or Belmont, or Gardner Webb stick it to the powerhouse programs? These were exhibition games, meaningless, but the victories got a lot of ink, and they exposed some problems for the big name teams that lost. So while we probably won't see any of the teams I mentioned above in the 'Big Dance' come March, they served a big wake up call in November, to some teams that we will see come March.
Something similar is happening to Clinton campaign in my opinion. They are sputtering, not hitting on all cylinders. They are letting lesser campaigns control the tempo of the race, making them look reactive not proactive.
by dpANDREWS, Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:00:39 AM EST
Barack Obama, in an attempt to get to the left of Hillary Clinton, has staked out a number of positions that seriously weaken him in the general election.
On issues of taxes, immigration, and national security, Obama has taken stances on issues that will give many Americans - independent Americans - pause.
by dpANDREWS, Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 05:48:17 AM EST
In a piece he titles 'Played for a Sucker' Krugman hits Obama hard on his saying that Social Security is in crisis. Krugman makes many of the same points that others have made on this site.
Krugman ticks off the list of what many of us know is true. The most important being that saying Social Security is in "crisis" gives Republicans an opening to destroy the system through privatization.
To me, however, I think the most important point Krugman makes, the most damaging to Obama, doesn't directly deal with social security, and it plays into something that I have pointed out many times, and that Clinton rapped Obama's knuckles on last night.
by dpANDREWS, Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:28:14 AM EST
MSNBC's 'First Read' is reporting that Chris Dodd is out with a strong statement attacking John Edwards for being "angry" and for failing to state in an interview, when asked, that he would endorse Hillary Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee.
Dobbs comments as reported by 'First Read':
"I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew. Of course, we should all come together to support the nominee. I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to Hillary?"
by dpANDREWS, Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:25:09 AM EST
Newsweek Magazine's Richard Wolffe asked the 20 million dollar question: Is John Edwards in trouble in Iowa?
In the the Nov. 19 issue of Newsweek, Wolffe reports on a number of key endorsements that Edwards has lost recently, many of them migrating to camp Clinton.
The article, 'Lost In The Cornfields':
by dpANDREWS, Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:51:46 AM EST
I have not been so frustrated by politics in a long long time. Driving back from lunch, listenting to the Ed Schultz show on Air America, I got to hear an exchange between the host and a female caller (Nicki I believe).
Nickie is not going to vote in '08 and the fearless host says he can't blame her.
I don't know whether to approach such people softly and try to convince them to reconsider or to scorn them, throw up my hands up and brace myself for at least 4 more years of authoritarian Republican rule from the White House. I am not sure it really matters because I think the outcome may be the same.
by dpANDREWS, Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 04:06:34 AM EST
Bill Clinton never said he wife was being swiftboated. Actually this who brew ha ha over his comments illustrated points that I have been trying to make for the last week or so. Bill Clinton was trying to make a similar point.
The Republicans are starting to run their standard playbook against the Democrats and the media is falling back to where it was in 2000, when it swallowed these Republican gimmicks whole, and ran with Republican talking points as if they were facts instead of talking points.
Sadly, Democrats are letting this happen because either we as a group are not paying attention, or because many of us don't care as long as the focus of the attack isn't pointed at the candidate of our choice.