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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (113416)	8/29/2003 10:56:17 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That's an interesting question, and the short answer is: I don't know. The long-(winded) answer is: It remains to be seen if the Democrats are going to run a me-to Republican-Lite candidate, or a real peace candidate ( = promises a quick handover to UN and then Iraqis, and a rapid exit of US soldiers from Iraq). Clearly, some of them (like Graham and Gephardt and Clark) are Republican-Lite. Others, like Dean, haven't yet made up their mind, imo. It's also difficult to separate rhetoric from reality, for everyone running. After all, Bush ran in 2000, and governed until 9/11, as a semi-isolationist, who was going to leave foreign affairs almost entirely to his well-respected Sec. of State, and concentrate almost entirely on his domestic agenda. Any Democrat could also deliver something far different than what he promised when running for office. The Greens have indicated they are going to run a candidate in 2004 (although Nader has not said he will run again), and that's very good news for Bush.