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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (14158)	9/3/2007 9:58:01 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224729

Governor Brown's wife would disagree with you... You are out of the Arkansas party loop... LIAR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than Hillary is lesbian in any way, shape or form.

To: American Spirit who wrote (14158)	9/3/2007 2:20:03 PM
From: jim-thompson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

i don't know about hillary, but pretty boy edwards is as queer as a 3 dollar bill....., but he is not as stupid or horney as senator craig who does his trolling in men's public restrooms..... or if he does, he hasn't gotten caught yet....

To: American Spirit who wrote (14158)	9/4/2007 12:39:04 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

The way Democrats will lose September 2, 2007 JAMES GREGORY(AP) The table has never been better set for Democrats to take control of the country next year. But never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to blow it. Only once since the Roosevelt-Truman era has the country kept one party in the White House for more than eight years -- when Republican Ronald Reagan handed the reins over to the first President George Bush, who was out of office in four. The Democrats have three potential stumbling blocks: Their internal fighting over presidential primaries that could alienate voters in some key states, such as Florida and Michigan; the prospect of nominating a candidate who cannot win, as has happened before; and a backlash in favor of a relatively "safe" Republican presidential candidate by voters who, given recent history, just don't want one party running everything. On the primaries, it surely escapes the average voter why the Democrats insist on dictating to states how and when to conduct their primaries. As for a problematic presidential nominee, at the moment the two leading Democratic candidates are U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Polls favor Clinton to win the nomination but show Obama running better in the general election. It's early, of course, but Clinton has been a polarizing national figure, with still about half the people saying they'd never vote for her. As for Obama, history, including the recent affirmative action vote in Michigan, show that when race is a factor, enough people will talk one way and vote the other to make polls suspect. So you wonder, and some Democrats must wonder, too, whether one or both of their front runners is really just the next John Kerry. Plus, the nation has not elected a sitting U.S. senator as president since 1960. We prefer current or former governors. If the Democrats are really going to widen their control of Congress next year, could the third or more of nonaligned voters who decide elections decide that keeping a Republican in the White House will keep the Democrats from running riot? Any of those three factors could pull the tablecloth out from under the Democrats in 2008.