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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17632)	11/10/2007 3:16:13 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

...and Hillary was financed by felon Hsu. America's best...lolol Is he still in jail? We need candidates who show they can make good decisions. Rudy seems to keep company with many corrupt people like Kerik.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17632)	11/10/2007 11:59:28 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

WSJ/NBC Poll=Giuliani 45:Hillary 46-Is this why Democrats are getting nervous? By Michael Evans, yahoo.com November 9, 2007 Why are Democrats, all of a sudden, increasingly concerned about 2008? Part of the answer can be found in that same WSJ/NBC News poll in which the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton is essentially in a dead-heat with her GOP counterpart Rudy Giuliani. In a direct match-up between the two of them, Clinton leads Giuliani 46 percent to 45 percent. This is not how it was supposed to be. This was going to be an election that Democrats ran away with, the one that could salve the wounds of 2000 and 2004 and spare the country the agony of another nail-biter of an election night. If we were lucky, we thought it would provide some brief respite from the hand-to-hand political and cultural combat of the last two decades because we were going to vote on Iraq, and on that we were not so divided anymore. Well, so much for all that. In truth, there was never any chance of a blowout. We know that whatever the political climate now, it is going to change once each party had a nominee. The Democratic strategy then was to tie the Republican nominee to Bush in hopes that the president's unpopularity would sink him. With Clinton looking the runaway Democratic winner, Republicans may have gotten the jump in that department. "I think the '08 election is going to be about Senator Clinton and where she wants to take America," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "So the landscape next year, in my view, is going to be about this new Congress and its presidential nominee ... and where they want to take America." This is not necessarily a landscape that a lot of Democrats are really comfortable with. Clinton's fumbles in the last Democratic debate -- on immigration and her seeming inability to give a straight answer -- threw into sharp relief the fact that the GOP nominee will have a fair amount of Democratic vulnerability to work with if she is the nominee. The last debate raised a fair number of uncomfortable questions for Democrats, not all of them about Clinton. It was a nightmarishly familiar scene: the equivocating, tap-dancing candidate unable, at the critical moment, to say exactly what she believed -- think Al Gore on guns or John Kerry on abortion and the $87 million that he voted for before he voted against. It undermined the growing sense that Clinton had been remade into a tougher, more solid candidate, who, whatever her other issues, was going to come ready to beat the Republicans at their own game. Then there was Obama, who had promised to take it to Hillary. Over and over, when the chance presented itself to go for the jugular, he demurred. John Edwards, who most Democrats think can't win, was the one who seemed willing to confront the Clinton Inevitability Machine most directly. So in the end, despite relatively strong performances from nearly all their candidates, there were moments that reminded Democrats how often their party has looked wrong-footed, weak, and unsure of itself. This is a seminal fear which they had hoped they would not have to deal with any time soon.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (17632)	11/10/2007 2:22:13 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224729

Profiles in Politics November 10, 2007 So in the end, the Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General on Thursday night, 53-40. What happened to the grave threats he posed to the republic? Yes, Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the floor to explain that the judge was unfit to serve because he wouldn't declaim on the legality of "waterboarding," an interrogation technique that Congress itself hasn't banned. But notably missing in action were the Democrats running for President. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd had all declared their opposition but never showed for the vote. Their absence suggests that the entire Mukasey "fight" was a political charade. Democrats wanted to appease their antiwar base by raising a fuss, but without actually defeating him. As Dan Rather would say, "Courage." online.wsj.com