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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (25566)	1/21/2004 4:09:50 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793759

"The Note" Lieberman: The Union Leader reports that Lieberman says he won't drop out of the race, even if he finishes below third in New Hampshire. LINK From ABC News' Lieberman campaign reporter Talesha Reynolds: While Senator Lieberman had kind words for Dick Gephardt the day after his disappointing finish in Iowa, he admitted before the Congressman's official withdrawal from the race that he is seeking the backing of former Gephardt supporters like South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn. "There's no question I'm reaching out through other members of Congress who are supporting me to the members of Congress who supported Dick Gephardt," he said. "I don't expect them to make quick decisions, but I have a lot of good friends there and I'm hopeful as this goes on that I will enjoy their support." Lieberman and Clyburn worked together in 2002 to secure federal funding to rehabilitate black colleges and before Clyburn endorsed Gephardt, Lieberman asked Clyburn to make him his "second choice," preparing for the possibility of Gephardt dropping out. Last week Lieberman started running a series of ads in South Carolina last week that include a line about working with Clyburn on education and funding black colleges. LINK Clark: From ABC News Clark campaign reporter Deborah Apton: It's all about New Hampshire for the campaign — surrogates like Jamie Rubin and Wes Clark Jr. will campaign in other primary states, but advance staff and Little Rock "big wigs" remain perched by The General's side. And as new Kerry signs pop up along South Willow Street in Manchester (ones like "Doubting Dean? Vote Kerry."), it is clear that there is no "Dean Alternative" to speak of in New Hampshire. Rather, a group of three candidates hovering around three top spots. Among the other big challenges for the campaign? Not letting Clark lose his voice again as it becomes raspier with each campaign stop.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25566)	1/21/2004 4:12:40 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793759

A blogger brings up the same point you and I just mentioned. FIGHT TERRORISM, OR CHASE TERRORISTS? Richard Perle and David Frum (first, credit to the Times for publishing them, second, admit it, every time you see them on book tour together you think it's the most bizarre partnership you've seen for awhile, and wonder who really did the writing) pose a critical question for all the presidential candidates. There has been much criticism of the administration's relationship to the Saudi's, and their refusal to push harder (remember when Senator Graham was running, how much attention he wanted shed on the infamous "28 pgs?") So, if the Bush administration is too cozy with the Saudis, lets ask the other candidates -- where would they take US-Saudi relations? And as they point out, an especially intriguing question for General Clark. rantingprofs.typepad.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (25566)	1/21/2004 4:16:24 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793759

I was unhappy with the "Times" lead story on Bush's speech. Turns out I was not alone. OFFENDER NUMBER ONE As I note below, I was pleased to see the President particularly challenge those who would have us believe that the War on Terror is no war. Over the months since September 11th one of the leading sources, in ways large and small, overt and subtle, of that perspective, has been the New York Times. In this morning's coverage of the speech comes a perfect example (and, just as an FYI, headlines often differ between the dead tree and web versions. The web version is headlined, "In Speech, President Casts Himself as Steady Commander in Chief." The dead tree version, under the major headline over several articles, "Bush, Somber and Determined, Stresses War Against Terror," titles this particular article, "Speech to Nation: Strongest Denunciation of Gay Marriage is Among Themes." Whatever.) But here's what's inside the article on the topic: "Mr. Bush cast himself as the steady commander in chief of what he portrayed as a nation at war, seeming to suggest that changing the leader midbattle was risky." Note the subtle suggestion that the portrayal is a rhetorical device, and by definition if you are creating a perception of a situation in that manner then it is not pointing to something that exists in the world as a matter of fact. But this statement is just amazing: On Tuesday night, Mr. Bush offered no specific evidence to back up his more general and much less disputed statement that "terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world." Hey, it's less disputed, because no one serious disputes it. The various questions and challenges over the intelligence on Iraqi WMD, it has been noted, will create difficulties in making claims down the line on other issues. But that should not mean that this kind of subtle creation of doubt should be allowed to be slipped in regarding something that is clearly true. How do we know it's true? Bali. Jakarta. Morroco. Riyadh. Istanbul. Plots in Singapore, Paris, London. Does this mean we can look forward to no more questions regarding the failure to find Osama? rantingprofs.typepad.com