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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (41511)	11/16/2003 1:59:53 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

The other conclusion I reached was that the candidates have tried very hard not to have too many 'hard' positions. Saw part of a Q&A with John Edwards on TV a week ago. His answers on energy and other issues were very vague. There's more valid policy discussion on re-runs of "The West Wing" thatn these Q & A s. Lots of people talking about energy independence with a mention of coal or nuclear. Some talk of technmological breakthroughs - Energy independence through technonlogy (with no hard choices) is like technology magic for Democrats. Sort of like SDI / Star Wars was for Republicans.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (41511)	11/16/2003 2:13:41 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

OT / US politics - Democrats would to very well to cut the candidate field down to more managable numbers. Right now its hard to get ANY message out, or build name recognition. Also, a smaller field would concentrate the funds available to a critical mass, and leave money for Congressional races. Having 9 -10 candidates must make Karl Rove a happy man. By the way, most candidates will need a better message than "I hate George Bush more than the other candidates" I'm pretty much a blue dog Democrat - that's like the DLC, which Bill Clinton lead to the middle, where the votes and donors are.