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 Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (817)	1/11/2007 3:40:41 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

When I said Obama had nothing to lose by running I wasn't talking about running and actually getting the nomination. If he got the nomination and lost, then he'd probably eliminate himself from future consideration. I don't think he has much chance of getting nominated. When it comes down to it, the Party regulars aren't going to want to take a chance on someone so new and untested. Just like they backed off supporting Howard Dean the last time around. But, if he runs and does fairly well in the early primaries, he could build a foundation for future races. I think people will forgive McCain for supporting the troop escalation, even if it turns out to be a disaster. It sort of supports the idea that he's a man that puts principle ahead of political expediency.

To: American Spirit who wrote (817)	1/14/2007 11:02:29 AM
From: jim-thompson	Respond to of 149317

Why are you so against Obama? Why are you trying to turn people against him? I think you are on the wrong thread. McCain has been toast for a long time. Rudy's whoremongering ways will keep him out of the White House. Democraps need to nominate someone who is honorable. I don't know much about Obama, so I don't know if he is the one.

To: American Spirit who wrote (817)	1/15/2007 7:36:03 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

Like Vietnam, Iraq Realigns American Politics _____________________________________________________ By Howard Fineman Newsweek Jan. 22, 2007 issue Ted Kennedy speaks with the voice of history. White-maned and nearing 75, the brother of two assassinated heroes and a veteran of 44 Senate years, he is—in defiance of the odds—again in his prime: a chairman in good health with a doting wife and a packed legislative agenda. No one tells Ted Kennedy what to do; in any case, the Senate's Democratic leaders were fine with his plan to give a big speech two days before President George W. Bush announced a troop "surge" in Iraq. They are generally glad to let Kennedy play the role he relishes: Irish-American Isaiah, calling his party to account even as legislative insiders keep their distance. This time party brass got more than they bargained for. Summoning the authority of his years as an intimate witness to history, Kennedy made an eloquent case for a Senate vote on the surge and for a court test of its legitimacy under the War Powers Resolution. "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam!" he thundered. "Echoes of that disaster are all around us today!" It was, in its own way, a defining moment. He got a standing ovation and, the next day, congratulations all around on the Hill. By the end of the week—in the aftermath of Bush's tepid speech and Condi Rice's evasive testimony—Kennedy looked prescient. A generation ago, a war—Vietnam—launched a realignment of American politics. Now, it seems increasingly clear, Iraq is doing the same. In 1968 college students flocked to the New Hampshire primary to protest Lyndon Johnson's policies, sparking a civil war in the Democratic Party on foreign policy that lasted for a generation. By contrast, Vietnam united the GOP around an anti-communist crusade that endured for decades. "Ronald Reagan was gung-ho about Vietnam," says Craig Shirley, a GOP operative and Reagan biographer. "It solidified his world view, and the party's." Now a mirror image is developing. Democrats seem to be uniting around a theme—the primacy of global diplomacy and congressional review. Republicans, by contrast, have lost the unity that they had during the cold war and the early years of the war on terror. As Republican divisions grow, Democrats, pressed by their antiwar grass roots, are drawing together. Except for "Independent Democrat" Sen. Joe Lieberman, Dems are increasingly of one mind about Iraq in particular and antiterrorism strategy in general. A vote on surge spending—which Democratic Senate leaders had hoped to avoid and which is technically difficult to devise—now is likely at some point. In general, the party seems less fearful of the old "soft on defense" shibboleth, and ever more tolerant of groups such as Win Without War and Move On. One of the Senate's few other hawkish Democrats, Sen. Evan Bayh, told me that he opposes the surge, and agreed that Congress might have to face the question of funding at some point. The Senate's growing ranks of Democratic presidential contenders—Chris Dodd jumped in last week, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are expected to do so soon—are gravitating toward a bring-them-home-quickly stance. "We don't want to come off looking like wimps," said Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton supporter and former party chairman. But he added: "We're jumping all over ourselves now to see who can be the toughest on Bush and the war." It's a fateful competition—which Ted Kennedy already won. msnbc.msn.com