Antiwar.com Blog

Barbara Ehrenreich, writing in The Nation: 

“When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called CSPAN radio to report that they’d just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for… Obama.”

Ms. Ehrenreich and I are on the same wave-length, apparently, because the key to unlocking to this seeming conundrum is to be found in my column tomorrow ….

 

My commentary on recent developments in the Ron Paul campaign — and an addendum here. An editorial note: I did not choose the title.

As usual, Matt Yglesias sums it all up in very few words:

“John McCain says that “anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military.” On the contrary, it seems to me that McCain doesn’t understand diplomacy, Iraq, foreign policy, strategy, the concept of limited resources, or just about anything else.”

In the Maryland primary yesterday, Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest was defeated by a pro-war challenger.

Gilchrest voted for the Iraq War in 2003, but later said he regretted the decision. Gilchrest later criticized Bush’s handling of the war and became one of two Republicans (with Ron Paul) to vote last year for a withdrawal timeline.

The campaign against Gilchrest started just a few months after he took office for his ninth term and his challengers were heavily funded by pro-war establishment GOP leaders.

Speaking before the American Bar Association, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, went against most of his fellow Republican politicians, at least on the subject of torture: “And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is, and will always be torture. That’s a simple statement.”