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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (6135)	1/25/2004 11:29:25 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

As usual <gg>, I agree with your entire post with a tiny exception. Paragraph 3 - If someone had come along with a message of conciliation, not attack, then I believe the US is ripe for that candidate. I don't believe the "attack Bush" is going to win. (The attack Clinton made Clinton's poplularity rise even during impeachment.) Whether this is rationale or reactionary is immaterial. I believe Kerry has moved forward because he was perceived as less attacking and less "out of control" than Dean. Ironically, the attack ads against Dean led the voters to believe that Dean was immoderate, personally and politically. The rise of Clark before his candidacy was announced, and his subsequent plateau, is also a sign that the US is looking for something instead of Bush, but not the anti-Bush or the "hate-Bush." Edwards - did well - coming from nowhere and I think he has a chance because he ran a more issues oriented campaign, refusing to get into the name-calling and keeping the Bush bashing to a minimum. Right now, he's a long shot. He needs to do very well in the south. If so, I think he'd have a good chance of beating Bush if he can stay the course and not be convinced to go into typical political attack mode. I didn't think he did particuarly well in the last debate but those are tough. 7 people spouting sound bites, irrespective of the question, makes it tough to have a real debate. As for the media, it goes where the best headline is, despite what disappointed SI posters may think or pretend to ignore. The left wing nuts attack the media as being controlled by e.g. Jews and pro-Bush reactionaries. The right wing nuts say the media is controlled by, e.g., the liberal Jews and the hate-Bush crowd. Do we see a pattern yet? Most of us, the vast majority of us reject the extremists on both sides. If it comes down to Bush v anti-Bush, Bush will win. It may not be right, or rational, or even the best outcome, but it will happen.