Democrat Changes Since 2006

I had an interesting coversation last night with a liberal friend. Ultimately, he is not happy with the direction the country has taken. I asked him what it is specifically he is unhappy about. Here is a short list of things he came up with. (Not in order of importance)

  • The fact that we have troops still in Iraq
  • The cost of gasoline
  • The housing market, both the increase in foreclosures and the falling market
  • The fact that most Americans do not have health insurance
  • The unemployment rate
  • The fact that consumer confidence is at a record low
  • The state of the stock market

Well I will give you one guess on who he blames for all these problems… That’s right George Bush and the Republican Party.

I remember when the country elected a Democrat controlled Congress in 2006, since then all of these things have gotten worse. I wonder if this is the change Obama is talking about. Or is this how Democrats are progressive as Hillary likes to tout herself to be.

Americans need to look at what has changed over the past couple of years and determine what the real cause of the problem is.

As I like to tell people, Liberals need people to be down and out, if they are not down and out, then they have nothing to campaign on. They need to keep people poor and repressed for their own survival.

Liberals Kick Hillary While She Is Down

Wow, I never thought I would see the day that Liberals would be upset with Hillary. With the Iowa caucus coming up and Barak Obama taking the lead in the Democratic poles, her flip flop politics have now come under fire from her own side. I think this may be more of a surprise than the Hugo Chavez story. I really cannot believe this article yet, it could mean there is hope for Liberals after all…

What is odd, is that her policy changes for votes has been the typical MO for the Democratic party for years. I guess they learned from Kerry/Edwards, that it does not work.

Now someone needs to tell George Bush to take a firm stance again and stop his flip flopping because it makes Conservatives look like Liberals…

I can’t wait to see Hillary’s response to these adds, she cannot use the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy theory this time, so I guess her only card will be the Gender Card…

The Democratic fight is starting to look like my son’s Pokemon game…

I think the last sentence of the article would read better if it said she was in a three way with…

I imagine this groups ads will be tracked back to Obama… Here comes Hillarichu vs O-Bama-Ramadan…

WASHINGTON  —  Liberal activists plan to begin airing a television ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa this week, the first non-Republican negative ad aimed at a Democratic presidential candidate.

The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions. It planned to introduce the ad Tuesday.

Glenn Hurowitz, the group’s president, described the spot as a modest buy that would run on cable only, meaning it won’t be seen as much as ads by Clinton and rival Barack Obama, who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads in the state.

Democratic Courage is a political action committee, financed by contributions of no more than $5,000 per person.

“We are concerned that she wouldn’t be the best candidate in the general election or the best president because she is so easily bullied by the Republican attack machine,” Hurowitz said.

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have all run ads putting Clinton in a negative light.

Hurowitz said the group does not plan to endorse any candidate, though he said it may run a negative ad against another Democrat in the field. He would not identify who that would be. He said the extent of the group’s advertising would depend on the amount of donations its first ad generates.

Clinton is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa with Obama and John Edwards. The Iowa caucuses are only one month away.

Hillary’s Gender Card Setup for Presidential Race

With Hillary not even through the primaries, the liberal media is already setting up the gender card for when she runs for the Presidency.

The article outlines how she has broken the barrier in the Democratic primary, well if that is the case, then maybe she needs to put the gender card away the next time her trailing rivals “attack” her. But she is poised to use the card when running against the Republican primary winner.

If she looses either race, she will surely blame it on the fact that she is a woman…

I will be most forget about this next year when she tries to say the Republican candidate is only attacking her because she is a woman…

Why can’t Hillary just run as best candidate, why does she always have to pull up her gender….

For Hillary Clinton, a funny thing has happened on the way to the Democratic nomination: one of her biggest potential handicaps—her gender—has become her biggest strength. Seeking to “smash” what she calls “the highest glass ceiling,” Clinton has secured a 20-point national lead among Democrats almost solely on the basis of her support among women, who favored her by 42 points over Barack Obama in the October ABC/Washington Post survey.

But does Clinton’s early advantage mean we’re past gender when picking presidents? Not so fast, say experts. The Democratic primary is one thing—Dems are typically more comfortable than Republicans when it comes to voting for women. But the general election is a much different test. (Assuming Clinton gets that far: the latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows Obama ahead in Iowa, and tied among women there.) “The idea that gender won’t matter in the general election is just insane,” says unaffiliated Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal. “Gender brings all sorts of baggage. The big question is, is it a net plus or a net minus?”

Early signs suggest America hasn’t figured that out yet. While 90 percent of the populace claims to be ready for a Madame President, a third of Americans also say that most people they know will be “less likely” to vote for Clinton because she’s a woman—more than twice the number who say her gender will win her more votes, according to a New York Times poll in July. Such a gap hints that Clinton may end up, like many African-American candidates over the years, with fewer votes on Election Day than the polls predicted. Recent Gallup matchups against Rudy Giuliani show Clinton running weaker among women (6 percent over Giuliani, on average) than Gore in 2000 (8 percent over Bush). In fact, her outsize deficit among men—16 points versus seven for Gore—means that, all else being equal, she’d actually do worse than the former veep.


Clinton pollster Mark Penn has said that Clinton’s gender-related strengths in the general election outweigh her weaknesses. Last month he told reporters that up to 24 percent of Republican women would support Clinton. Maybe so. But it’s worth remembering that Gore in 2000 outperformed Clinton’s New York numbers among Republican women by five points, and this year GOP and independent women are more willing to rule out Clinton than Obama. In other words, Clinton’s camp may say she’s “inevitable” in the primary, but the gender battle is far from over. In fact, it hasn’t even begun.