Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (61909)	8/10/2007 5:10:07 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

We're Winning. Uh-Oh! Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO Thursday, August 9, 2007 2:46 p.m. EDT Our already good mood brightened further this morning when we read this Associated Press dispatch from Washington: <<< One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum. One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning. These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers. >>> This doesn't necessarily mean these senators will abandon their calls for retreat, but it does seem likely that, come next month, those Democrats who do want America to win in Iraq--as well as Republican weak sisters, who've feared that they'll pay a price politically if they don't jump on the surrender bandwagon--will have an easier time voting their consciences. On the other hand, it's doubtful that this will change the politics of the Democratic presidential race, where the core voters have always opposed the war and, failing that, favored retreat. Actually, when you think about it, it's amazing how similar the 2008 race is to the 2004 race. We have a formidable establishment candidate who originally backed the war, then changed his mind (John Kerry then, Hillary Clinton now); a challenger who has opposed the war all along, and who is clearly out of his depth (Howard Dean, Barack Obama); and a third guy who stands around looking pretty (John Edwards, John Edwards). The biggest difference is that Mike Gravel doesn't quite have the gravitas of a Carol Moseley Braun. This year, of course, everyone seems to think the Democrats are very likely, even guaranteed, to win. That's because, unlike in 2004, George W. Bush is very, very unpopular. The biggest danger for the Dems, then, is that their nominee will figure out that Bush is not on the ballot and won't know what to do. opinionjournal.com news.yahoo.com