SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (18468)11/30/2007 4:34:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224762
 
Hostage Situation at Clinton Office in N.H.: this bitch has too many enemies
By The New York Times

4:20 p.m. MSNBC is reporting that the son-in-law of the suspect walked into a restaurant and while he ordered coffee, told witnesses that his father-in-law had gone to a hardware store and bought roadside flares.
4:10 p.m. Mitt Romney’s campaign released a statement saying they have asked all the campaign field offices to “lock all exterior doors and be on alert for any suspicious individuals.”
“We’ve also reminded all Romney campaign employees in Boston and across the country to be cognizant when entering or exiting staff offices so as not to allow anyone into offices who is not authorized.”
“Everyone is keeping those involved in the situation in our thoughts and prayers right now as well, with hopes of a safe resolution.”
3:42 p.m. WMUR-TV in New Hampshire is reporting that two hostages have been released from the campaign offices, but it is unclear whether there are still hostages inside. According to the Associated Press, at least one hostage remains in the building.
ABC News reported that the suspect is a man who is known locally and has a history of mental illness. The network also reported that the man had
told his son today, “Watch the news.”
The suspect has not been identified publicly and there is no information available on his son.
3:35 p.m. The Rochester police received a call shortly after 12:30 p.m. alerting them to a possible hostage situation, according to Captain Paul Callaghan. It took only a short time to realize the threat was real and the Rochester Police, as part of a routine procedure, contacted the neighboring Dover and Durham police departments for assistance.
The New Hampshire State Police bomb squad unit was also called in to help deal with the situation.
The streets around Mrs. Clinton’s headquarters were sealed off and the area evacuated, including St. Elizabeth Seton School, which includes children in grades 1 through 8. Captain Callaghan said buses were arranged to transport the childrten and they were all cleared out within the last half-hour.
“We have stabilized the situation in the area around the office,” Captain Callaghan said.
He would not comment on reports that one hostage had been freed or how many remained in the building.
Original post, updated | 3:26 p.m. A man claiming to have a bomb strapped to his chest walked in to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign offices in Rochester, N.H., today and took hostages, police and witnesses said.
Senator Clinton was not in the building at the time. She was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Committee meeting in Vienna, Va., afternoon, but she canceled that appearance after receiving the reports that at least two volunteers were being held captive.
Bill Shaheen, a co-chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s New Hampshire and national campaign, said in a telephone interview at 2:40 p.m. that the two hostages are both staff members in the Rochester campaign office, one of 16 offices that Mrs. Clinton has around the state.
Mr. Shaheen did not know the names of the two people.
He said that there had been no threats of violence against campaign offices of Mrs. Clinton herself in New Hampshire. “We’ve had no security issues, and I’m not even sure this is a threat to her, to my knowledge,” Mr. Shaheen said.
Mr. Shaheen said that the campaign’s New Hampshire spokeswoman, Kathleen Strand, was en route to Rochester to talk to authorities and the media gathering there. Mr. Shaheen was speaking from Boston and said he was leaving for Rochester shortly.
He said he had no knowledge about the apparent request of the hostage-taker to speak to Mrs. Clinton, or whether Mrs. Clinton would do so. The campaign released a statement on its Web site.
Clinton advisers said that Mrs. Clinton was monitoring the situation from a location in the Washington area; one adviser said he believed that she was at or heading toward the campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va. Another adviser said the campaign had been in touch with authorities in New Hampshire to confirm the details that had been reported in the media thus far. This adviser said the campaign was trying not to overtax the authorities with phone calls or information requests. “We’re letting them do their jobs,” this adviser said.
Rodney Doherty, editor of Foster’s Daily Democrat, the major newspaper in the Rochester area, said in an interview at 3:15 p.m. that his reporters
had yet to confirm the identity of the hostage-taker, but that they were pursuing one particular lead. “We’re focused in on a fellow who has been a problem in the past,” Mr. Doherty said.
While cable news stations have been showing tape-delayed footage of the scene in Rochester, with police moving around the building, Mr. Doherty said that his reporters currently see police standing by in the area.
A young woman, possibly one of the hostages, was apparently released shortly before 2 p.m., as the high profile drama on Main Street in Rochester played out via television.
The officers, weapons drawn, then backed slowly away a few yards from the entrance of office in a small red-brick building.
Moments later, a woman emerged.
She walked slowly at first and then ran, with an officer by her side, to safety behind an armored vehicle.
The cable stations showed the footage on tape delay, likely not broadcasting live for security reasons.
At the D.N.C. meeting in Virginia, Democratic national chairman Howard Dean made the announcement in a hotel ballroom, gasps were heard from the crowd of several hundred delegates and party officials.
“Details are sketchy at this time,” Mr. Dean said. “We will keep them in our prayers and hope for a resolution of this situation.”
Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to appear before the D.N.C. meeting this afternoon. Her rivals, Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson addressed the crowd this morning.
Mrs. Clinton had already arrived here at the Sheraton Premier Hotel at Tysons Corner when reports of the hostage situation began to trickle in. She was in private meetings in the hotel, officials said, when the decision was made that she would not address the D.N.C. It was not for her own security reasons, officials said, but rather out of a concern for her staff in New Hampshire and she wanted to go monitor developments.
When Mr. Dean made the announcement that her speech had been canceled, dozens of her supporters wearing “Hillary” shirts who had arrived for her speech began to leave.
Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama, said the Rochester offices of the Obama campaign — only a few doors down from the Clinton campaign — also had been evacuated, along with other businesses in the area. The Obama staff members were fine, he said.
As he addressed the D.N.C. this afternoon, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware commented on the incident, saying he heard about it as he was driving out here. “I pray to God it all works out as she heads to New Hampshire,” Mr. Biden said.
According to reports from WMUR-TV and the Union Leader, two workers taken hostage in the office on 28 North Main St. A woman and her baby told workers at a neighboring business that she was released by the hostage-taker.
“A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, ‘You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape,’” witness Lettie Tzizik said.
The woman said a man with pepper-and-salt hair in his 40s with what appeared to be a bomb duct-taped to his chest had entered the office and ordered everyone onto the floor, Ms. Tzizik said.
There are several police officers positioned across the street from the office, crouched down behind cruisers with guns drawn, according to a reporter at the scene.
“I walked out and I immediately started running, and I saw that the road was blocked off. They told me to run and keep going,” said Cassandra Hamilton, who works in an office adjacent to the building.
Nearby businesses have been evacuated and schools have been locked down.
Patrick Healy, Jeff Zeleny, Marc Santora, Katharine Q. Seelye, Ariel Alexovich and Michael Luo



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (18468)11/30/2007 7:20:10 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 224762
 
Times of London says Hillary is the stale "way we were" candidate...too bad they don't get a vote

>From The Times

Vote Winfrey, not Streisand

30 November 2007

The Democrats are hauling out the celebrities but one appears a lot fresher than the otherGerard Baker
Somebody once famously described Washington as Hollywood for ugly people. But when politicians, as they invariably do, import celebrities into their campaigns, it is intended not merely to make the candidates easier on the eye. It is designed to say something about themselves, to communicate to the half-interested voter something comprehensible in the universal argot of popular culture.

As we enter the final month of campaigning before the first votes are cast in the primary phase of the presidential election, the Democrats have stepped out on the primrose path of megastar endorsements. Senator Barack Obama announced last weekend that he will be campaigning in December with Oprah Winfrey, the queen of the TV talk-show circuit, creator of an entire media empire. Not to be outshone in the glare, Senator Hillary Clinton quickly announced that she would be animating once again that waxwork icon of liberal campaigns past, Barbra Streisand.

There is general agreement that Mr Obama got the better of this exchange: tit for tat, as it were. Oprah is not merely a bigger draw for Americans these days; she is a much more contemporary figure than Streisand. Winfrey is, certainly in political terms, a novelty. She has never endorsed a presidential candidate before. So when this remarkably persuasive woman goes head over heels for the young black senator from her home state of Illinois, as she clearly has, it matters to her vast audience.

Streisand long ago crossed the blurry boundary between celebrity and politics. She is yesterday's news, proudly waving the banner of liberal preposterousness since 1965. Her only memorable recent cinematic performance, for all the wrong reasons, was as the oversexed sexuagenarian alongside Dustin Hoffman in the utterly tasteless Meet The Fockers sequel.

Her intervention this week is fitting, though, precisely because it captures what looms as the largest impediment to the increasingly troubled ambitions of Mrs Clinton, that what the former First Lady is offering is a better yesterday. Mrs Clinton's campaign might in fact be summed up in the lyrics of Streisand's most famous locution, back when she was still a bona fide celebrity:

Memories, like the corners of my mind,

Misty, water-coloured memories

Of the way we were

Despite her efforts to portray herself as something new, voters know well enough that Mrs Clinton represents a restoration rather than a revolution. For many Democrats, angry and bitter about the direction of US politics these past eight years, this is just fine, the dewy memories of The Way They Were in those aquarelle days of the 1990s is good enough.

But there's clear evidence now that this won't do: 2008 is shaping up to be what political strategists call a change election. It is not just eight years of George Bush that voters want to consign to the past but the whole political culture of the past 20 years or so.

Mrs Clinton has made great play of her experience, to put unconquerable distance between herself and the rookie Senator Obama. But polls, especially in Iowa, site of the first votes on January 3, indicate that voters value change more than experience by a margin of two to one. Democratic voters don't necessarily disdain the Clinton years. They just want to move on.

The antique quality of the Streisand endorsement was one of a number of signs in the runes in the last week or so that something quite significant is happening in the Democratic contest. There is the faintest air of, if not exactly desperation in Mrs Clinton's campaign, then at least of a deepening unease, a gently foaming tributary of doubt trickling down the gaunt mountainside of her inevitability.

The hitherto almost flawless Clinton campaign has been doing odd things in what looks like an over-eagerness to pander to every class of voter. On Monday she told a predominantly black audience in South Carolina that as president she would appoint General Colin Powell to a prominent advisory position on foreign policy. This proved to be news to the retired general and President Bush's first Secretary of State. Asked by reporters what he made of the suggestion, he sounded distinctly unenthusiastic. It looked in fact suspiciously like a rather desperate attempt to stop General Powell from jumping on the bandwagon of Mr Obama, of whom he has spoken warmly in the past.

On Tuesday, even more transparently, her loquacious husband, Bill, in the course of a long discourse in Iowa on the subject of his general genius, casually observed that he had been against the Iraq war from the very start. This sat well with the solidly antiwar voters who were listening, but much less comfortably with the known facts. Mr Clinton has never previously said he was against the war.

It looked instead like a fairly clumsy attempt to send further smoke over Senator Clinton's vote to support the war five years ago, a decision that is causing her grief among Democratic primary voters. Mr Obama, of course, actually did oppose the war from the start.

Mr Obama, meanwhile, keeps making mistakes that underline his inexperience. His latest was the odd contention that his living in Indonesia for a few years as a child gave him some useful foreign policy experience. But voters apparently don't mind. They seem prepared to accept his lack of a lengthy background in politics as the price worth paying for the excitement of novelty.

Mrs Clinton, until recently, had conducted a highly disciplined campaign that only underlined her experience and evident capabilities. But in the early primary states, which are very likely to be crucial, voters seem increasingly to view that experience, and all the baggage it represents, as a reason to reject her.

The worry for the Clinton campaign as it enters the perilous home stretch is that The Way We Were may not be the way Democrats want to be. That, in their desire for change, they may come up with the wrong answer to the question that once played on Streisand's lips:

If we had the chance to do it all

again

Tell me, would we? Could we?<



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (18468)12/1/2007 7:11:54 AM
From: tonto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224762
 
Gallup Poll:

Republicans have better mental health than Democrats.
Independents are also polled lower than Republicans. No numbers were mentioned in the news report.

58% of republicans

43% of democrats



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (18468)12/1/2007 11:57:45 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224762
 
Message 24099354



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (18468)12/1/2007 11:28:00 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224762
 
Death, Taxes and Mrs. Clinton
By PEGGY NOONAN
December 1, 2007; Page W11

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction -- of destroying a person -- is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?


Giuliani at the debate: Why not ask Democrats tough questions too?
I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?

It was a good debate, feisty and revealing. It's not bad that the questions had a certain spin, and played on stereotypes of the GOP. It's just bad that it doesn't quite happen at Democratic debates. Somehow, there, an obscure restraint sets in on the part of news producers. Too bad. Running for most powerful person in the world is, among other things, an act of startling presumption. They all should be grilled, everyone, both sides. Winter voting approaches; may many chestnuts be roasted on an open fire.

In New York I find more and more people who think this week's political scandal, Rudy Giuliani and the cost and means of payment of his visits to the Hamptons, following so closely the indictment of his former police commissioner, will fatally damage his candidacy. I don't know. The specifics on both stories aside, I'm not sure scandal is what it used to be.

Two things are true in the modern media environment, and they collide with each other and may tend to cancel each other out. One is that a scandal makes its way around the world and into the bloodstream right away and with full force, through the Internet and cable. The other is that a lot of scandals have made their way around the world and into the bloodstream in the past 10 years. Immediacy and broad knowledge collide with sheer glut. Everyone has heard so much about so many. At some point, don't voters start to see all of public life as one big polluted river? And if they do, don't they stop saying things like "That's a busted tire floating by" and "That's an old shoe"? If they're familiar with the principle, as Thoreau said, don't they become less attentive to its numerous applications?

Add to that the fact that in the past decade, concurrent with the rise of new media, the Clintons perfected a new method of scandal management that starts with "These are lies spread by a partisan conspiracy," proceeds to "That's old news," and ends a few years later, when detailed books come out, with "That's rehash for cash." This strategy is not a constructive contribution to our political culture, but it has worked in the new environment. They'll teach it in political science media management courses in the future.

Mrs. Clinton is acting as if she's scared. She insists to Katie Couric that she's the next president -- "It will be me" -- and she's back to using the language of aggression -- there's been a lot of "beat," as in they've been trying to "beat me." In the first 60 seconds of her Couric interview she used some variation on the word "attack" five times. If Mitt Romney talked like this, they'd be asking who put the Red Bull in his milkshake.

She continues her political kleptomania in terms of themes from the 1988 presidential campaign, which seems to preoccupy her. A few months ago she was saying she was born in the middle of America in the middle of the century, which is what George H.W. Bush said of Dan Quayle. She proceeded to call herself famous but unknown, which is what was said of Mr. Bush at the time. Now she calls herself ready from day one to be president. Old Bush's tag line in his '88 commercials was "Ready on day one to be a great president."

This is the first time she's faced a real threat, in Barack Obama, and it's left me thinking about how being The Inevitable is a high-risk game. You can get far being the inevitable choice. A lot of people will believe it and support you, especially the weak, and the pragmatic. They give you early support and early money. Others see the endorsements and contributions. Another level of giver and supporter kicks in. It starts to show in the national polls. Everyone knows you're inevitable.

But there are two problems with this strategy. One is that your support is by definition broad but shallow. You have a lot of people, but they won't crawl over broken glass for you. When I talk to Hillary supporters they mostly enact a facsimile of what they think passion is, and are reduced to a dulled aggression. "We're gonna win."

The second part of the inevitability problem is that once you seem no longer inevitable -- once the polls stop rising or start to fall, once that air is out of the balloon and the thing that made everyone fall in line is gone -- well, what do you do? If the main argument of your candidacy is you're inevitable and suddenly you're evitable, where does that leave you? What does it leave you with? Mere hunger. Insistence: "It will be me."

And anger at this nobody who wasn't even in the Senate when you took the big votes, this cream puff who was a functionary in Chicago when you were getting your head beaten in by Ken Starr. What does Mrs. Clinton do when she's feeling angry? What has she done in the past? Goodness, this won't be pretty.

Inevitable is a good game to play until it doesn't work anymore. A while back I was speaking to a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, and I mentioned in passing that Obama might win the nomination. "Nothing is written." The Clinton supporter said, "Well I would love to support Obama if that happens." It was a standard thing to say, and yet the Clintonite said it awful quick.

In any case, there's something that comes like relief, like a boost, when politics turns out to be surprising, when the inevitable gets evitable, when the machine is slowed. It reminds you who really runs the place, that for all our mess it still comes down to the person in the precinct walking to the caucus site on ground that crunches from the cold. Here's to surprise. It's a great antidote to cynicism.