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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55670)	7/22/2004 10:48:18 AM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 793613

Doesn't exactly make for good vibes at the Dem convention, does it? Does anyone have a handle on who leaked the story, anyway? Berger seemed to be stonewalling on negotiations as to what he would formally admit to and I wondered if the story was leaked to force his hand. Plus it would embarrass Kerry, of course.....

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55670)	7/22/2004 11:16:06 AM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793613

NYT calls for Arafat to resign! That's it, he's toast. :-/ (Of course, the Times doesn't call for any force to remove him, no, no, he should just "retire". Maybe he would if somebody made it worth his while. His wife has a standard of living to maintain in Paris.) The Arafat Problem Published: July 22, 2004 It's been the misfortune of the Palestinian people to be stuck with Yasir Arafat as their founding father, a leader who has failed to make the transition from romantic revolutionary to statesman. All he seems capable of offering Palestinians now is a communal form of the martyrdom he seems to covet. Mr. Arafat should accept his limitations and retire as president of the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli occupation, with all its excesses, remains the last prop for Mr. Arafat's popularity, and even that has lost its power to insulate him from serious political challenges. Encouragingly, Palestinians, increasingly fed up with Mr. Arafat's corruption, cronyism and deafness to their needs and aspirations, are becoming more assertive about demanding change. In the fall of 2002, members of Mr. Arafat's own Fatah movement mounted the first open political rebellion and forced Mr. Arafat to fire his entire cabinet and ostensibly cede some power to a prime minister in early 2003. That process has not worked, as Mr. Arafat has clung to power, and the Gaza Strip's ongoing descent into lawlessness is emboldening calls for change, which will only intensify as an Israeli withdrawal from the territory draws closer. Mr. Arafat didn't help his cause there when he picked a relative, Mousa Arafat, to be the new security chief. This week, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, one of the most loyal of Mr. Arafat's lieutenants and the chief negotiator of the Oslo agreements, proffered his resignation. "The very fabric of Palestinian society is coming apart," he said. Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority has become so discredited in Gaza that more people now look to Hamas, the radical Islamist movement, to provide some stability. Nor do Mr. Arafat's longstanding international benefactors pretend any longer that he is capable of responsibly governing a sovereign state if he ever got the chance. The retirement of Mr. Arafat, who is 74, would allow the creation of a more credible Palestinian government that could garner international support and claim the moral high ground in the confrontation with Mr. Arafat's equally stubborn nemesis, Ariel Sharon. But there is, of course, no sign that Mr. Arafat is interested in much beyond his own myth. Pinned down for the last two years in his battered Ramallah bunker, Mr. Arafat has abused his control over the authority's treasury and militias. It seems to be of no importance to him that the Palestinian lands are in total ruin and that the fruits of the Oslo accords are in tatters. His reflexive insistence that this is all the fault of "Zionists," the West and other Arabs is unsustainable. Mr. Arafat himself bears a large share of the responsibility for these misfortunes. Saying that it's time for Mr. Arafat to go is not the same as saying it is time for Mr. Arafat to be removed by force. He is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long. Any Israeli or American-sanctioned move against him - or even an internal coup - would probably backfire. Ideally, Mr. Arafat's exit would be dictated by the Palestinian electorate at the polls, but there is nothing ideal about the Palestinian quandary, and it is unlikely that new elections can be organized in the occupied territories anytime soon. The dire situation calls for Mr. Arafat's immediate retirement. nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55670)	7/22/2004 12:03:02 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793613

Dick Morris suggests a developing feud between the Clinton camp and the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the Dems. May explain Clinton's mirth at hearing of Trousergate. Very interesting and worthwhile article: nypost.com July 21, 2004 -- JUST as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other. The Kerry campaign's recent effort to keep Hillary out of the convention's spotlight prime time, coupled with the selection of Sen. John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, are opening shots in this fight, which will likely escalate into a full-fledged feud. When Kerry chose Edwards, a charismatic future contender for the presidency, he knew he was investing in an opponent for Hillary when she goes for the top job herself. If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008; if he wins, she'll run in 2012. Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat. Hillary, of course, was entitled to a prime-time speech. Apart from her husband, she is the most popular Democrat in the nation and she has addressed both of the last two conventions. The fiction that the women Democratic senators caucused and decided to anoint Maryland's Barbara Mikulsky to speak for them fooled nobody. To suggest that Hillary should mutely stand behind Mikulsky nodding in agreement was a statement to the Clintons: This isn't your party anymore. The split began in the fall of 2003, when Kerry was floundering in the face of the Howard Dean surge. The Clintons had bet on Kerry and even sent Chris Lehane (who had played a key role in their Lewinsky-impeachment defense) to be the Massachusetts senator's chief campaign consultant. But as Kerry faltered, the Clintons bailed out on his candidacy and pushed Gen. Wesley Clark into the race as their candidate. The former president was quoted in public as saying that his wife and Gen. Clark were the two most outstanding Democrats in the nation. Clinton loyalists like Bruce Lindsay and Harry Thomason took their cue and went to work for Clark (a fellow Arkansan). But the unkindest cut of all was when Lehane walked out of the Kerry campaign, attesting to the senator's lack of viability and joined up with Clark. In rushed Ted Kennedy to save the day, sending Mary Beth Cahill of his Senate staff to steer the faltering Kerry campaign. Kennedy's pivotal role was evident from his up-front and public position by his Massachusetts colleague's side on the night Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. As Kerry was all but clinching the nomination, who introduced him to the victory rally? Ted Kennedy. Throughout their administration, the Clintons cold-shouldered Kennedy — realizing that the average American voter saw him as radioactively liberal. In the 1996 campaign, we went into overdrive to be sure that Kennedy would have no prime-time speaking role, even though he had usually had the spotlight to himself at past Democratic conclaves. As Bill Clinton veered to the center, he increasingly parted company with Ted Kennedy and became the senator's factional antagonist within the party. The gap was bridged somewhat in the impeachment fight, but has come back with a vengeance now that Kennedy is using Kerry as an alternative to the Clinton domination of the party. Indeed, insiders in the Kerry operation were quoted anonymously as saying that Kennedy had warned against putting Hillary on the ticket. The increasing tendency of the Kennedy-Kerry operatives to shut out the Clintons from the campaign highlights the Clinton conundrum: They desperately want Kerry to lose, but can't say so in public. Bill Clinton's publication of his memoirs a few weeks before the Democratic convention was clearly a move to slow down Kerry's momentum. The book's timing forced Kerry to designate Edwards much earlier than is traditional, so as to stop the former president from hogging the spotlight. Kerry will probably pay for his premature selection in decreased viewership during his convention now that it is drained of any suspense. The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list — even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill — is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred.