by dpANDREWS, Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:40:02 PM EDT
The proof is in the policy.
We can yap and flap our gums and talk about ending the war and withdrawl and we can also talk about the reality.
The New York Times provides a heavy dose of reality. Guess what? There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the 3 Democratic front runners (or the one front runners and the top two trailers). All would leave significant troops in Iraq for sometime to come.
by dpANDREWS, Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:35:48 AM EDT
First Read weighs in this morning on the latest NBC/WSJ polling showing Hillary up over Obama in the primaries and also over Giuliani in the general.
The piece echos two things that I have said here recently. One, Hillary is running in the general right now, not the primary. Second, these leads she is now showing in the general election match ups will only strength her hand in the primaries, given the lust for electability among many primary voters.
Is she basically putting Obama and Edwards in her rear view mirror and focusing on that thin slice of moderate and independents that will determine the general election? Is this a mistake on Hillary Clinton's part? If it is I don't think Obama or Edwards have the strength to capitalize on it.
by dpANDREWS, Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:07:58 AM EDT
Seems some hillbilly cop in Asheville, North Carolina either went on a power trip or a something like a 'roid rage and attacked an activist for peace in his home. He had to break the door down to do it, but hey, when there are peace activists to be billy clubbed, a door is not going to stand in the way.
Seems now the cop is trying to lie his way out of the whole incident and blame his rage on the protestor. However, luckily there was at least one witness nearby that saw the whole thing.
Sadly, taking place in the mountains of North Carolina, I would bet the officer becomes a local legend, the witness disappears, and the hippie gets the chair.
by dpANDREWS, Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 05:37:07 PM EDT
Raw story out with the numbers ahead of their general release. She is beating Rduy by 6 among registered voters. 7 in a threeway race with Bloomberg.
With Fred looking like you'd expect Fred to look - lazy and weak, and with McCain the tank, and Romney being a flip flopping nut, I am again thinking Rudy will prevail on the GOP side.
It is good to see Hillary putting it to him among registered voters. I think the "electability" stuff can be retired when it comes to Clinton. I think her strong debate performances have many believe she is Presidential and then some.
Clinton just rolls on.
by dpANDREWS, Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 05:51:27 AM EDT
In the wake of the dust up between Hillary Clinton and Obama, regarding diplomatic methods and meeting with foreign leaders, Rasmussen offers us up some polling. It is interesting.
It appears more Americans, and most Democrats, agree with Barack Obama. They support meeting without conditions.
However when asked the broader question of who they trust to handle issues of national security, 28% say Hillary Clinton and by a solid margain. Rudy Giuliani came second at 20%. Hillary beat Obama by double digits - 13%.
by dpANDREWS, Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:59:21 AM EDT
These latest rounds of attack on Hillary Clinton from the Obama campaign really strike me. It says a lot of Barack Obama's campaign. It also shows some disturbing signs among what I hope is only a small percentage of his supporters.
I think Barack Obama and those running his campaign had better really think about the picture of themselves they have painted this week. As for his supporters they best think back to 2000 and then remember the last 6 1/2 years.
Obama is now willingly playing into mold that Republicans have used to stereotype and defeat Democrats going back to McGovern. It may not be right but it has been awful effective. He has now gone as far as to say that there is little difference between George Bush and Hillary Clinton, the very claim Ralph Nader makes.
by dpANDREWS, Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:40:34 AM EDT
I just stumbled across this story while reading up on things over at 'The Politico.' I found it interesting. Until reading this story I had been under the impression that a man with a knife had stalked Barack Obama. I pictured a man, carrying a knife, in a hotel corridor with dark intentions.
Comments from the Obama campaign had / have done little to dispel my impressions which could not be further off the mark.
Its seems that the man with the knife was an Armenian that sold playing cards. Card with Obama's face on them. He simply asked where the Obama rally was (Obama's people wouldn't tell him). Then he got in his car. Then he was arrested and spent three days in the can for no other offense other than trying to earn a living.
by dpANDREWS, Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:04:17 AM EDT
How tasty. We are in for another round of GOP / right wing hypocrisy.
Remember when an Democratic African American Congresswoman was stopped by Capitol Hill Police for doing nothing wrong and ended up making contact with a police officer? Sure you do. Republicans wanted her arrested and to serve hard time. It was wall to wall talk radio hysteria. It even helped boost a primary challenge that saw her lose her seat to another Democrat.
Now we have a white male Republican, breaking the rules of entrance to a federal building, throwing a temper tantrum and ultimately making contact with a police officer. Why am I not so sure that the El Lushbo's and InsaHANNITY's of the world will not be making a big fuss out this?
Oh because they are worthless hypocrits.
As reported by the Politico:
by dpANDREWS, Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:46:32 AM EDT
I hate to post two diaries in the same day but I ran across this over at the Huffington Post and I really wanted everyone to get a chance to see it.
It is a video by Max Blumenthal that really shows what scumbags the young Republicans are and what gutless peices of shit they are.
In the video Max captures them at their convention cheerleading for the war, spewing 5 year old talking points, and ultimately giving lame excuses why they won't participate in what they see as the greatest stuggle of our generation (or some horseshit like that).
Too see the video:
by dpANDREWS, Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 08:16:20 AM EDT
"There's not a dime's worth of difference between them," this according to John Isaacs who heads up an anti-war group called Council for a Livable World. Isaac's, as reported today in the L.A. Times was speaking about the Democratic hopefuls running for President.
The article in the L.A. Times today, by Janet Hook, hits at what I have thought all along. That no Democratic contender is going to make a lot of hay on the war. The leading candidates are all saying and doing basically the same things. There is no great differences. The nomination will be won on an issue other than opposing the war and saying they will end it.