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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: portage who wrote (956)	2/6/2004 1:45:03 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Re: Bank on it. It was exactly this ridiculous complacency that destroyed this nation in 2000. Shame on you for being so smug, so superficial and so deluded. If you would have paid the least bit of attention, you'd be alert to the fact that HAVA 2002 is a license to steal votes, that the media is in bed with Bush and still controls 80% of the votes in America, and that we aren't exactly getting honesty out to the public. Shame on you. Come to your senses. America is just about lost to the forces of fascism. And you smugly suggest that Bush is over? How naive can you be? Don't you understand the first thing about dirty tricks and October surprises? I'm astonished I have to write something like this admonishing you to be less naive. If I can conclude you are naive, what of the other 2,000 SI folks who haven't seen through the Bush scheme to defraud California in the phony energy "crisis". This nation may simply be too naive to be a democracy in the 21st Century. I've seen nothing to counter this argument. And much to indicate that the Bush Family knows exactly how to take advantage of the naivete of the American electorate. There is only one way to fight criminals like the Bush Family. Head on, all the time, relentlessly exposing their crimes. Never relent, never rest on your laurels. You haven't won a thing yet.

To: portage who wrote (956)	2/6/2004 2:08:36 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

The Democrats Sharpen the Focus washingtonpost.com By David S. Broder Columnist The Washington Post Thursday, February 5, 2004 COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The Democratic presidential field has been narrowed to its serious center, a place where policy differences are minimal and the prospects of fielding a serious challenge to President Bush look best. That is the meaning of the seven-state demolition derby on Tuesday, and it is likely to be reinforced this weekend when three more states -- Maine, Michigan and Washington -- join the parade. Tuesday's voting finished off Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who was at the opposite pole of the Democratic Party from Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, a casualty of the Iowa caucuses. Gephardt represented most of the labor wing of the old Democratic coalition, cemented to his cause by his history of opposition to liberal trade agreements. Lieberman was the candidate of the New Democrats, a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, a strong advocate of the very trade policies Gephardt denounced. The most pro-labor and pro-business Democrats running are gone. Almost vanished -- shut out on Tuesday and sinking in the polls -- is former Vermont governor Howard Dean, the most outspoken and acerbic critic of the party's congressional establishment. Despite his embrace by former vice president Al Gore, Dean sounds increasingly like a scold, decrying the records and impugning the character of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the first choice of most Democratic voters. Two other pretenders are of little consequence. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has never found a constituency for his peace platform. And the Rev. Al Sharpton, the florid civil rights activist from New York, could win only 10 percent of the votes in South Carolina, where African Americans made up 45 percent of the electorate. Black Democrats no less than white are passing up symbolism and seeking the candidate who can beat George Bush. So it comes down to Kerry and his two mainstream challengers, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the big winner in South Carolina, and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who edged Edwards for honors in Oklahoma. The notable thing about these three is how much they agree on -- and how willing Democratic voters are to accept their credentials. Exit polls noted, for example, that in Oklahoma, where Kerry received only 27 percent of the votes, 70 percent said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee. As for the issues, the differences among them are minimal. Clark (and, to a lesser extent, Edwards) has faulted Kerry for accepting contributions from lobbyists. Edwards has pointed to his differences with Kerry on trade. But you could take large chunks of the stump speech of any one of them, slip it onto a teleprompter and place it before any of the others, and he would read it as comfortably as if it were his own. Clark calls for bringing "a higher standard of leadership" to the White House; Edwards vows to end inequality in education and health care; Kerry says he will do both. All three decry the record and the "misplaced priorities" of the Bush administration. Where they differ most is in their biographies. Kerry is the political veteran, the man with a record in public office stretching back three decades. He is also the most patrician of the trio -- the son of a diplomat, a product of Yale and the husband of an heiress. Democrats often have nominated and elected such wealthy friends of the working class (think FDR and JFK), so there is plenty of tradition for Kerry to evoke -- and plenty of reverse snobbery for his opponents to exploit. Edwards and Clark are much more self-made men, climbing out of modest family backgrounds thanks to education at public universities (West Point for Clark, North Carolina State for Edwards) and distinguishing themselves from thousands of others in their chosen fields of the military and the law by their braininess and their work ethic. Politically, they face different tests. Kerry has run well in states where Democrats are expected to win or at least compete strongly in November -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Missouri, Delaware, New Mexico and Arizona among them. He has yet to demonstrate that he can expand the playing field. Tennessee and Virginia next Tuesday could allow him to do that. The single victories by Edwards and Clark have come in states that lean Republican, South Carolina and Oklahoma. They can claim the potential to challenge Bush in his electoral base, but they need to show more support in the Democratic heartland. Michigan, Washington and Maine this weekend could do that for them, as could Wisconsin on the 17th. But the main point is this: If the Democrats can't form a competitive ticket by combining two of these three, then they're not smart enough to deserve the White House. davidbroder@washpost.com