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: MJ who wrote (1536)	2/22/2007 1:32:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 149317

That's true but I sure wouldn't bet against Obama...;-)

To: MJ who wrote (1536)	2/22/2007 8:02:28 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

My comment: You must have thought similar to what Obama did about this. I was suspicious that the Hillary folks would behave like Karl Rove and gang. My suspicions have come true. Anybody who comes their way should be a target for dead meat. People are tired of the Bushes and Clintons. =========================================== Obama won't apologize for supporter's remarks By Charlotte Eby Journal Des Moines Bureau DES MOINES -- Democrat Barack Obama refused on Wednesday to apologize to Hillary Clinton for comments one of his supporters made calling Clinton "ambitious" and "polarizing," although Obama said he didn't share those views. "I can't be responsible for the statements of every single individual who contributes to our campaign. I mean we've got thousands of people who are contributing, some who may have real differences with the other candidates," Obama said at a news conference in Des Moines. "It doesn't reflect my views. They didn't come from me or my staff, and my suspicion is that the voters of Iowa are probably more concerned about what both myself and Sen. Clinton think about Iraq, and health care and jobs." Before Obama's appearance in Iowa Wednesday, the Clinton campaign hastily organized a conference call with Iowa reporters featuring one of Clinton's top Iowa supporters. Former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell said Obama's campaign talk of the politics of hope and changing the tone in Washington was at odds with what she characterized as a personal attack on Clinton. "Actions speak louder than words. If the senator is to be consistent, then he should disavow the attack on Sen. Clinton," Campbell said. The statements were made by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who is backing Obama and hosted a fundraising event for him this week. Geffen was quoted in a column in The New York Times criticizing Clinton as "ambitious" and "polarizing." Geffen also took aim at Bill Clinton, calling him "reckless." Obama said he not had not read the full column before talking with reporters, but said it wasn't clear to him why he should apologize for someone else's remarks. Obama said he has the "utmost respect" for Clinton and would continue to consider her an ally in the Senate. The tiff Wednesday marked the first salvo from the Clinton campaign in the caucus race among the Democratic contenders. Less than two weeks after formally jumping into the race, Obama was at the Iowa State Capitol to meet in private with Democratic state lawmakers before appearing at a town hall meeting in Des Moines. Obama, a former Illinois state legislator, said he was interested in listening to what state lawmakers had to say and get suggestions about where in the state he should visit and how to approach the caucus process. During the opening weekend of his announcement speech, Obama drew close to 10,000 to hear him speak at events around Iowa. But he admitted to liking a more personal style of politics, comparing it to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign when he said he spent most of his time driving alone from town to town in downstate Illinois. "That's where you hear the stories that really matter, the stories of, you know, families who've got a veteran overseas, stories of people struggling with health care and trying to figure out how to balance immediate costs with wanting to save for their kids. That's the kind of stuff that helps inform our politics and our campaign, and the more we can do that the better," Obama said. siouxcityjournal.com

To: MJ who wrote (1536)	2/24/2007 11:26:39 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 149317

MJ, I suppose that you are a proponent of Hillary Clinton and that you would be fine if Barack got the nomination. As far as I am concerned, I am a proponent of Obama and would be fine if the Democrats voted to have Hillary as the nominee. Having said that, I am posting this since I agree with the author that Hillary has a very convoluted thought process which is driven pruely by t he politics of the situation and the preservation of her power. ======================================== Hillary Clinton No apology on Iraq. 2/23/2007 Hillary Clinton’s advisors think that last week may “be remembered as a turning point in the race,” said Patrick Healy in The New York Times. They may well be right—but will it mark the day she proved to Democrats that she should be their nominee for president or sent them searching for an alternative? For months, Clinton had been under intense pressure from the party’s liberal activists to follow the lead of former Sen. John Edwards and “repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.” Last week, she “rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition.” Clinton told a crowd in New Hampshire that “if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.” If that gamble works, voters will see Clinton as principled and consistent—unlike, say, flip-flopping 2004 nominee John Kerry. But if Democrats prefer a more adamant anti-war candidate … well, there are others to choose from. Good for Hillary, said James Klurfeld in Newsday. Her position on the war has been consistent since Day One—in fact, since before Day One. Don’t forget it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who first called for regime change in Iraq. When President Bush took up the cry, Hillary duly supported him, though all the while stressing the danger of the U.S.’s acting without U.N. approval. When you look back at Clinton’s position on Iraq, said David Brooks in The New York Times, you see a senator who was hoping to force Saddam to disarm, but who properly deferred to the commander in chief on the decision to use force. To apologize now would be to utterly “forfeit her integrity.” What integrity? said Christopher Hitchens in Slate.com. Hillary’s latest defense of her Iraq vote includes a self-serving dodge: The Bush administration, she contends, duped her with bogus intelligence about Saddam and his WMD. But for eight years, her husband’s administration received the same high-level intelligence briefings, which is why in 1998 the Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act, making it U.S. policy to remove Saddam and his Baathist thugs from power. In 2002, Sen. Clinton gave “some of the tougher and better-argued speeches in favor of regime change.” For her to try and present herself now as an innocent victim of Bush’s deceit is the height of flip-floppery, and suggests that on the main issue of the day, Hillary Clinton is “not just highly unprincipled but also completely unserious.” theweekmagazine.com