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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (507025)	12/10/2003 1:01:14 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

Hillary's Sunday sleigh ride Brent Bozell (archive) December 10, 2003 \| Print \| Send Last Sunday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did something she has never done before: appear on the three morning shows on ABC, CBS and NBC, all on the same Sunday. Once viewers could see the easy sleigh ride she was getting, they might ask: Why'd she wait until now? Foolish people -- defined as those who expected Hillary to be grilled by the networks -- were surely not only disappointed, but disgusted. In one softball pitch, Mrs. Clinton was asked to defend herself against nebulous conservative charges that it was wrong of her to tell soldiers in war zones that while everyone loved them, many question Bush administration policies. "I think that's reflective of the efforts by this administration to deny and divert attention from what everybody knows. I mean, it is like the old children's story, 'The Emperor Has No Clothes,'" Mrs. Clinton told Tim Russert. Can we agree that unclothed-emperor analogies are a bad metaphor -- a laughable choice -- from Mrs. Clinton? But Russert didn't even stutter or blink. As the senator representing (if not "from") New York rained criticism on Team Bush for failing to level with the American people and waging war on a political timetable, the Sunday hosts acted like they were born yesterday. Is there anything lamer than Hillary Clinton charging someone else with not "leveling" with the American people? Isn't she the one who screamed at George Stephanopoulos that she wouldn't tolerate any stinking independent counsel examining how the Clintons enabled their business partners, the McDougals, as they robbed millions from Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan? Did she "level" with the American people about her secret health care task force or her killing in cattle futures? If there is anything lamer, it's Hillary Clinton charging that some president other than her husband timed their military adventures on a political calendar. Don't the network stars remember how Clinton hit positively nothing belonging to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and hit a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to divert attention from his Lewinsky grand jury testimony? Don't they recall how he bombed Iraq just as House Republicans began considering impeachment charges? But the lamest part of these Sunday sessions came when all three wasted their precious hard-question time by asking the Fabulous Former First Lady if she would throw her combat helmet into the ring for the White House next year. CBS's John Roberts should win a prize for keeping the suck-ups short and perfunctory. ABC's George Stephanopoulos looked like he was still trying to gain new acceptance from the old boss, and NBC's Tim Russert turned his show into a five-minute, Hillary-you're-so-popular gigglefest. They clearly know that buffing this Democratic "superstar" image only builds her clout on Capitol Hill and across the country, and they delivered. And these people are wondering if Chris Wallace can ask tough questions on Fox? None of these fawners has so much as dipped a toe into political reality. Yes, Hillary beats the stuffing out of the Democrats currently in the race -- but only among Democrats . When the polls turn to the general public, she's incredibly weak and very divisive. Why don't they point that out? Well-informed political junkies like these Sunday morning hosts know that in June, ABC News posted a poll that found that only four in 10 Americans said Hillary should "ever" run for president, while a majority, 53 percent, said she should "never" run. The numbers could be viewed through an even darker glass. There was no substantive difference between men and women in their distaste for Hillary, and 56 percent of whites, 60 percent of older Americans, and 76 percent of Republicans told ABC "never" to a President Hillary campaign. But no one cited those numbers between Hillary giggles. In fact, on Monday morning, Stephanopoulos reprised the Hillary-as-rock-star stanza for ABC's "Good Morning America." Co-host Charles Gibson observed the obvious: "It seems like a lot of us can't take no for an answer." George then added that it's "fairly realistic" that Hillary will be pressed into service as the vice-presidential nominee, and "it'll be very tough for her to say no at that point." The closest ABC came to its own poll was suggesting she was a "polarizing figure." Twelve years after her national debut, with reporters polishing her pumps as Loyal Spouse and Mother in addition to her reputation as a Policy Genius, the networks are still treating her like an American queen, a madame-president-in-waiting, a "secular saint" in a black pantsuit. But all these years of unpaid advertising still leave a majority of Americans cold. Their soft soap isn't washing Hillary clean. Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: calgal who wrote (507025)	12/10/2003 1:01:21 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Dean leads polls but lacks official support in party By Donald Lambro THE WASHINGTON TIMES Howard Dean may be the undisputed front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in the polls, but not among governors and most of the Democrats in Congress. Six weeks before Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire begin choosing their candidate for president, the feisty former Vermont governor remains a little-known political figure to most of the country and in much of his party — drawing little formal support from the Democrats' national political establishment. More than a third of Democratic voters in most states say they are still undecided. Despite five terms as governor, his chairmanship of the Democratic Governors' Association and a 30-point lead in New Hampshire polls, not a single governor and relatively few members of Congress are backing the physician turned politician in his bid to challenge President Bush in 2004. Mr. Dean has been endorsed by 15 House Democrats and only one Senate Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy, who represents his home state of Vermont. This compares with 33 House members who have endorsed Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and 20 lawmakers who are backing Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Wesley Clark, a retired general, has the support of the two senators from Arkansas and Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York. None of the nation's Democratic governors has endorsed anyone. Dean campaign officials say he has begun to make inroads in the 425-member Democratic National Committee, but they decline to say how many endorsements he has received. They say Mr. Dean will have to resolve deep ideological differences within the party if he is to unite Democrats behind his insurgent, antiwar candidacy. They also say the difference in endorsements is meaningless. "Gephardt, Kerry and the rest of the crew have been working in Congress for half a century between them and together they have relatively few more endorsements in Congress than Governor Dean," said Dean campaign spokesman Jay Carson. The Dean campaign says its candidate has won the support of 565 various state and local elected officials and other party leaders across the country. "More important than [endorsements from] party officials, members of Congress and governors are the more than 500,000 voters who have signed up to support Dean's campaign. This far surpasses support for the other candidates," Mr. Carson said. But strategists for Mr. Dean's closest rivals say the lack of any major endorsements is a sign that the party's establishment has serious problems with Mr. Dean's candidacy and are waiting for the large number of undecided party leaders to unite behind the clearest alternative to Mr. Dean as the nine-member field of candidates shrinks. "If Al Gore, or Bill Clinton or Michael Dukakis were in the race today and were blowing away the opposition in New Hampshire by 30 points, as Dean is doing now, there is little doubt that they would have many more endorsements at this juncture in the race," said a senior adviser to one of Mr. Dean's competitors for the nomination. "One would think that there would be more institutional support for Dean than there is now. There is something particularly about Dean that makes people pause," this adviser said on the condition of anonymity. Some of Mr. Dean's other rivals have been talking privately about organizing a "stop-Dean" movement to get behind the candidate who shows the most strength against Mr. Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire. "Because no one has emerged as a strong challenger to Dean, [party leaders and most rank-and-file congressional officials] are not supporting any of these guys. They are waiting for an alternative to Dean to make sure they can stop a Dean candidacy," said another Democratic presidential campaign strategist. The 800 "unpledged" superdelegates conceivably could go to the Democratic National Convention in July and help deny the front-runner the nomination in a close battle for delegates. But virtually none of the camps sees that happening because of the compressed primary schedule that is tailored to give the front-runner the number needed to clinch the nomination by early March at the latest. "If you know the Democratic Party, you know that it doesn't vote as a bloc," said Steve Grossman, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who is now co-chairman of the Dean campaign. However, Mr. Grossman says most of the party's top elected officials have been waiting until after the early primaries to endorse a candidate. The reason for their delay, he said, is "political crosscurrents" in the states over the large field of candidates that make a major endorsement "politically difficult right now." Much of the enmity toward Mr. Dean has to do with his insurgent campaign that is at its core anti-establishment, other party strategists said. "Howard Dean is an outsider in Washington. He is competing with a group of rivals who have been deeply entrenched in Washington for years," Mr. Grossman said. "I don't think it is a question that [Democratic members of Congress] don't like Dean, but that they don't know him that well. They are somewhat confounded by a nontraditional, grass-roots campaign," he said. Still, Mr. Grossman readily acknowledges that "there are some significant ideological divisions in the Democratic Party as we move through the primary process. But I have no doubt that post-primary, Dean will have no trouble binding up the wounds of the Democratic Party and bring Democrats together for the campaign in the fall." washingtontimes.com